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

W;;

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

COMPRISING ITS

ANTIQUITIES, BIOGEAPHY, GEOGKAPHY,
AND NATUEAL HISTORY.

EDITED

By WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D.,

EDITOR OF THE DTOTIONAKIES OF "GREEK AND ROJfAN ANTIQUITrES," "BTOGRAPHY AND MTTHOLOfiT,'

AXD " GEOGRAPHT."

i ^!'.^ Vi^f&^t^^

^ '^ ^

ca < U

LU O^ r>

IN THEEE VOLUMES.— Vol. Ill
RED-SEA— ZUZIMS.

LONDON:

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET ;

WALTON AND MABERLY, UPPER GOWER STREET.

1863.

The right of Travslation is reserved.

DIRECTIONS TO BINDER.

Phte I Rpeciraen of Uncial MSS., to be placed between pages 1710 and 1711.
Platcli'., Specimens of British and Irish MSS., to be placed between pages
1712 and 1713.

I/lNDOX; PKINTKD IIY WILLIAM CLOWI« ANI> SOXS, STAJIFORD STREET,

AM> f'MAmNo cmoss.

LIST OF WRITERS.

II. A. Very Rev. Henry Alfokd, D.D.,

Dean of Canterbury.

H. B. Eev. Henby Bailey, B.D.,

Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbuiy ; late Fellow
of St. Jolin's College, Cambridge.

H. B. Eev. HoRATius Bonar, D.D.,

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.]

A. B. Eev. Alfred Barry, B.D.,

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

W. L. B, Eev. William Latham Bevan, M.A.,
Vicar of Hay, Brecknockshire.

J. W. B. Eev. Joseph Williams Blakesley, B.D.,

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

T. E. B. Eev. Thomas Edward Brown, M.A.,

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

E. W. B, Ven. Egbert William Browne, M.A.,

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

E. H. B. Eev. Edward Harold Browne, B.D.,

Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Exeter.

W. T. B. Eev. William Thomas Bullock. M.A.,

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

S. C. Eev. Samuel Clark, M.A.,

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
Lincoln.

G. E. L. C. Eight Eev. George Edward Lynch Cotton, D.D.,

Lord Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India.

J. LI. D. Eev. John Llewelyn Davies, M.A.,

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

iv LIST OF WIUTEKS.

INITIALS. NAMES.

E. D. KMAxcEr. Deutsch, M.K.A.S.,

BritiKh ]Mxiseum.

G. E. I). I{ev. G. H. Day, D.D.,

Lano Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.

\\ . J>. KOV. \VlI,LIAJI IJlUKE, M.A,,

Chaplain in Ordinary to the Qneen ; Hon. Canon of Worcester ;
Ihiral Dean ; Vicar of Holy Trinity, Coventiy

]•]. r. ]•]. Ikv. I'dward Paeoissien Eddktjp, ]\r.A.,

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

('. J. E. I light Eev. Charles Jajies Ellicott, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.

F. W. y. licv. Frederick A\'illiam Faeear, M.A.,

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

J. F. James Fergusson, F.R.S., F.R.A.S.,

Fellow of the Eoyal Institute of British Architects.

E. S. Ff. Edward S. Ffoulkes, M.A.,

late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford

W. F. Eight Eev. William Fitzgerald, D.D.,

Lord Bishop of Killaloe.

F. G. Eev. Francis Garden, M.A.,

Subdean of Her Majesty's Chapels EoyaL

F. W. (1. Eev. William Gotch, LL.D.,

late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London.

G. George Grove,

Crystal Palace, Sydenham.

II. !!. II. Eev. H. P.. Hackktt, D.D.,

Professor of Biblical Literature, Newton, Massachusetts.

E. 1 1 — s. Eev. Ernest Hawkins, B.D.,

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

11. II. Eev. Henry Hayman, B.D.,

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

A. ( ". 11. \'('n. Lord Arthur C. Hervey, M.A.,

Archdeacon of Sudbury, and Eector of Ickworth.

■). A. II. Kiv. .Iamioh Augustus Hessey, D.C.L.,

Head Master of Merchant Taylors' School; Preacher to the
lion. Society jf Gray's Inn; Prebendary of St. Paul's;
Painpton J^octuror Jbr 1800.

■I. 1'. 11. .loHKi-ii 1). Hooker, M.D., F.E.S.,
Eoval Ijutaiuc Gardens, Kew.

LIST OF WRITERS, v

INITIALS. NAMES.

J. J, n. Eev. James John ITornby, M.A.,

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

W. H. Kev. William Houghton, M.A., F.L.S.,

Eector of Preston on the Weald Moors, Salop.
J. S. H. Eev. John Saul Howson, D.D.,

Principal of the Collegiate Institution, Liverpool ; Hulsean
Lecturer for I860.

E. H. Eev. Edgak Huxtable, M.A.,

Snbdean of Wells.
W. B. J. Eev. William Basil Jones, M.A.,

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

Tutor of University College, Oxford ; Examining

Chaplain to the Archbishop of York.

A. H. L. Austen Henky Layard, D.C.L., M.P.

S. L. Eev. Stanley Leathes, M.A., M.E.S.L.,

Hebrew Lecturer in King's College, London.
J, B. L. Eev. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, M.A.,

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

D. W. M. Eev. D W. Marks,

Professor of Hebrew in University College, London.

F. M. Eev. Frederick Meyrick, M.A.,

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

Oppert. Professor Oppert, of Paris.

E. E. 0. Eev. Edward Eedman Orgee, M.A.,

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

T. J. 0. Yen. Thomas Johnson Ormerod, M.A.,

Archdeacon of Suffolk ; late Fellow of Brasenose College,
Oxford.

J. J. S. P. Eev. John James Stewart Peeowne, B.D.,

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

T. T. p. Eev. Thomas Thomason Perowne, B.D.,

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

H. W. P. Eev. Henry Wright Phillott, M.A.,

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

E. H. P. Eev. Edward Hayes Plumptre, M.A.,

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

E. S. P. Edward Stanley Poole, M.E.A.S.,
South Kensington Museum.

^- LIST OF WIUTERS.

INiriAUS. NAMES.

K. S. V. Reginald Stuart Poole,
I'ritish Miiseum.

.11 I'. K'cv. J. L. Porter, M.A.,

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

(" \\ L'cv. Charles Pritciiard, M.A., F.R.S.,

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

C. I J. Rev. George R.\wlinson, M.A.,

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

H. J. K. Rev. Henry John Rose, B.D.,

Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton Conquest, Bedfordsbire.

\y. S. i;ev. William Selwyn, D.D.,

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

A. P. S. Rev. Arthur Penrhtn Stanley, D.D.,

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

C. E. S. Rev. Calvin E. Stowe, D.D,,

Professor of Sacred Literature, Andover, Massachusetts.

.). P. T. Rev. J. P. Thompson, D.D.,
Kew York.

Most Rev. William Thomson, D.D.,
Lord Archbishop of Y'ork.

S. P. Tregelles, LL.D.,

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

Rev. H. B. Tristram, M.A., F.L.S.,

Master of Greatham Hospital.
Rev. Joseph Francis Thrupp, M.A.,

Yicar of Barrington ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Camb.
Hun. Edward T. B. Twisleton, M.A.,

Late Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford.
i;ev. Edmund Venables, M.A.,

Bunchurch, Isle of Wight.
Ruv. Brooke Foss Westcott, M.A.,

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

Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D.D.,

CaiKiii of Westminster.
W ii-LiAM Aldis Wricitt, M.A.,

Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge ; Hebrew Examiner
in till- I'liiver.sifv nC Ldiiddii.

s.
II

i:.

i;.
i;

v.
1"

\\'

. .\

. W

DICTIONAKY

BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES, BIOGKAPHY, GEOGEAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTOEY.

BED SEA

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 siiph" (fl-1D"DV 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 HQ-ID (Zw(i;3, LXX.)
in Num. xxi. 14, rendered " Red Sea " in A. V. ;
and in like manner, in Deut. i. 1, f]-1D, without
D''. The LXX. always render it tj epvdpa BaKaffffa
(except in Judg. xi. 16, where P^-ID, Si*/), 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 Rubrum or Jf. Erythraeum, was
extended to all the seas washing the shores of tlie
Arabian peninsula, and even the Indian Ocean : the
Red Sea itself, or Arabian Gulf, was 6 'ApaBios
kSXttos, or 'ApafiiKhs k., or Sinus Arabicus, and
its eastein branch, or the Gulf of the 'Akabeh,
AlXavlrris, 'EA.oj'i'ttjs, 'EXavLTiKhs, KoKiros, Sinus
Aelanites, or -S'. Aelaniticus. The Gulf of Suez
was specially the Heroopolite Gulf, 'HpwoTroAiTrjs
k6\ttos. Sinus Heroopolites, or S. HeroopoUticus.
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 seaof 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 yamin being used in the account of the passage

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

derivative of -Jij. with this signification : or, accord-
ing to others, from its being hemmed in by mountains,
from the same root (El-Malireezee's Khitat, descr. of the
Sea of EI-Kulzum).

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

" Yamm signifies a hahr of whicli the bottom is not
reached. BaAr applies to a " sea" or a " great river."
VOL. II. *

RED SEA

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

? y

Of the 7iames of this sea (1.) D* (Syr. L^> and
» V
l^K^O^ — the latter generally "a lake;" Hierog.

YUMA; Copt. lOJUL; Arabic, ^o)," signifies

" 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 (^i/eorim), [that
had] the waters round about it, whose rampart
[was] the sea Qjdm), and her wall was from the
sea (yam) ?■•

(2.) Pj-ID'O'' ; in the Coptic version, cblOJUL
nCtlA.pi. The meaning oi suph, and the reason
of its being applied to this sea, have given rise to
much learned controversy. Gesenius renders it i-ush,
reed, sea-u-eed. 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 1K\ (jjcor') ; for he was laid in suph,
on the brink of the yeor (Ex. ii. 3), where (in the
supJi) he was found by Pharaoh's daughter (5) ; and
in tire " burden of Egypt " (Is. xix.), with the dry-
ing up of the watei's of Egypt • " And the waters
shall fail from the sea (ydiii), 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 i-eeds and flags {siiph)
shall wither. The paper reeds '^ by the brooks (yeor),
by the mouth of the brooks {yeor), and everything

d Gesenius adds Is. xix. 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. 15, where the river [Nile] is nahar.

e Heb. nny, rendered by the LXX. axt, ax^S the
Greek being derived from -111}^, an Egyptian word de-
noting " marsh-grass, reeds, bulrushes, and any verdure
growing in a marsh." Gesenius renders iTiy, pi. Tiny.
" a nalced or bare place, i. e. destitute of trees . . . . ; here
used of the grassy places on the banks of the Nile :" but

3 T

1010

RED SEA

sown by the brooks {yeor , shall wither, be driven I in depth of the waters of the inundation remained

away, and be no Lmore]. The fishers also shall
mourn, and all they that cast ani;le into the brooks
(yeor) shall Lmient, and they that spread nets upon
the watere shall languish. Moreover they that work
in tine flax, and they that weave net works (white
linen?; shall be confounded. And they shall be
broken in the purposes thei-eof, all that make sluices
[and] ponds for fish" (xix. 5-10). Suph only occurs
iu one place be>ides those already referred to : in
Joii. ii. I) it is written, '• The watei-s compassed me
about, [even] to the soul ; the depth closed me
lound about, the weeds (siiph) were wrapped about
my he.id." With this single exception, which shows
that this product was also tbund in the Mediter-
ruie.in, suph is Ei^tian, either in the Red Sea, or
in the yeor, and this yeor in Kx. ii. was in the laud
of Goshen. What yeor signifies here, in Is. six.,
and generally, we shall examine presently. But
first o( suph.

The signification of t|-1D, suph, must be gathered
from the foregoing passages. In Arabic, the word,
with this signification (which commonly is " wool "),
is found only in one passage iu a rare lexicon (the
Mohkam 5IS.). 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 C]-1D of the D*, it seems quite certain, is a sea-
weed reseiiMing wool. Such sea-weed is thrown up
abundantly on the shores of the lied Sea. Fiirst
s;i_vs, s. r. S]-1D, " Ab Aethiopibus herba quaedam
snpho appellabatur, quae in profando maris rubri
crescit, quae rubra est, rubrumque colorem continet,
pannis tinjcendis )n.=eiTipntem, teste Hieronymo de
qualitate mans rubri" (p. 47, &c.). Diodaius (iii.
c. 19), Artemidorus (ap. Strabo, p. 770), and Aga-
tharchides (ed. Miiller, p. 136-7), speak of the weed
of the Arabian Gulf. Ehrenbeig (in Winer) enu-
meiates Fncus latifolius on the shores of this sea,
and at Suez Fuais crispus, F. trinodis, F. turhinatus,
F. papillosHS, F. diaphanus, &c., and the specially
red weed Trichodesmimn 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 Ije a marine product; and that it was found in the
lied Sea, the numerous passages in which that sea
is called the sea of suph leave no doubt.

But Pl-ID may have been also applied to any sub-
stance resembling wool, produced by a fluvial rush.
such as the papyrus, and hence by a synecdoche to

2 o-
such rush itself. Golius siiys, s. v. t?i vj, on the

S o^
authority of Ibn-.Maaroof (after explaining iS^yj

by " jflpyrus herba"), " Hiiic <<j.^n UV [the

cotton of the papyrus] gossi()iuni papyri, quod lannc
simile ex thyrso colligitur, et j^miixtum calci eflicit
tenacissimum caementi genus." This is curious ;
and it may also be observed that the p;i])yrus, which
liicliiderl more than one kind of cypcrus, grew -n
the mai-shcs, and in lands on which about two feet

IhU is unMtlgfacUiry. Boothroyd says, " Our tnuislators,
after oih.rx, niippused this word to siRnify (be papyrus;
but with'.ul any ji.sl authority. Kimchi e.xplaiiis, • Aroth I tlie mouth of the river

(Wilkinson's Ancinit Egyptians, iii. 61, 149, citing
Pliny, xiii. 11, Strab. xvii. 550); and that this is
agreeable to the position of the ancient head of the
gulf, with its canals and channels for irrigation
(yeoriin?), 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 iu the yeorim: the marshes of Egypt aje
now in the north of the Delta and are salt lands. —
As a fluvial rush, suph would be found in marsli-
huids as well as streams, aud in brackish water as
well as in sweet. It is worthy of note that a low
mai-shy place near the ancient head of the gulf is to
this day called Ghuweyhet el-Boos, "the bed of
reeds," and another place near Suez has the same
name ; traces perhaps of the gieat fields of reeds^
iTishes, and papyrus, which flourished here of old.
See also Pi-hahiroth, " the place wheie sedge
gi'ows" (?). Fresnel {Dissertation sur le schari
des E'gyptiens et le souf des Hehreux, Joum.
Asiat. 4* serie, si. pp. 274, •&c.) enumerates some
of the reeds found in Egypt. There is no sound
reason for identifying any one of these with siiph.
Fresnel, in this curious paper, endeavours to prove
that the Coptic " shari " (in the yam shari) was the
Arundo Aeyyptiaca of Desfontaines (in modern
Arabic hoos 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 v.'hich con-
troverts his arguments, they ai:e in themselves quite
inconclusive. Sir Gardner Wilkinson's catalogue ot
reeds, &c., is fuller than Fresnel's, and he suggests
the CypeiTis Dives or tlistigiatus (Arabic, Dees) to
be the sari of Pliny. The latter says, " Fructicosi
est genus sari, circa Xilum nascens, duorum fere
cubitomm altitudine, pollicari crassitudiue, coma
papyri, simileque manditur modo" {N. If. xiii. 23;
see also Theophr. iv. 9).

The occurrence of siiph in the 7je6r (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.) 1N> (Hierog. ATUR, AUR ; Copt. GiepO,
I^pO, I<LpCU) Memphitic dialect, lepO,
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 pass.iges in which it occurs do
not necessarily bear out this conclusion. By fai- the
gi-eater number refer to the sojourn in Egvpt : these
are Gen. xli. 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, Pharaoh's dream ; Ex. i.
22, the e.vposure 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 (viii.
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 herbanim virentiiun.'
Hence we may render, ' The uiarchy [sic) medows [stcl at
&c.

EED SEA

Egypt, wliere Pharaoh is " the great dragon that
lieth in the midst of his rivers (VIS?), which hath
said, My river Cl'X*) 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 ("IX'') [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
passage 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
ciinal of the Red Sea by that Pharaoli ? 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. —
Yeor occurs elsewhere only in Jer. xlvi. 7, 8,
in the prophecy against Necho ; in Isa. xxiii. 1.0,
where its application is doubtful; and in Dan. xii.
5, 6, whei-e it is held to be the Euphrates, but may
be the great canal of Babylon. The pi. yeonin,
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
Nile.

From a comparison of all the passages in which
it occurs theie 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 amal was regulated by
sluices, which excluded the waters of the Red Sea
and sweetened by the water of the canal the salt
lakes. Sti'abo (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 abund;mt proof of
the former cultivation of this country, which must
have been effected by the canal from the Nile just

RED SEA

1011

8 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 (nakr), to a lake, at the further
end of which was Pharaoh's pavilion (El-Beyddwee's Com-
ment, on the Kur-dn, xx. 39, p. 595, and Ez-Zamakhsheree's
Comment., entitled the Kesh.sh.df). "While we place no
dependance on Mohamruadan relations of Biblical events,
there may be here a glimmer of truth.

h Reland {Diss. Miscell. i. 87, &c.) is pleasantly severe
on the story of king Erythras ; but, with all his rare learn-
ing, he was Ignorant of Arab histoiy, which is here of the

mentioned, and by numerous canals and channels
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 sufih left
on the beaches of the yeor must have dried up and
rotted. The ancient beaches in the tract here
spoken of, which demonstrate successive elevations,
are well kuown.s

(4.) f] ipvdpa OdXaaaa. The origin of this ap-
pellation has been the soui'ce of moi'e speculation
even than the obscure supk ; for it lies more within
the range of genei'al scholarship. The theories ad-
vanced to account for it have been otten puerile, and
generally unworthy of acceptance. Their authors
may be divided into two schools. The first have
a.scribed 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 reflecteil 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 Rubra,
Diss. Miscell. i. pp. 59-117) argues that the epithet
red was applied to this and the neighlioiu'ing seas on
account of their tropical heat ; as indeed was said
by Artemidorus {ap. Strabo, xvi. 4, 20), that the
sea was called led because of the letlexion of the sun.
The second have endeavoured to find an etymological
derivation. Of these the earliest (European) writers
proposed a derivation from Edom, " red," by the
Greeks translated literally. Among them were N.
Fuller (Aliscell. Sacr. iv. c. 20) ; before him, Sca-
liger, in his notes to Festus ; voce Aegyptinos, ed.
1574; and still eai'Iier Genebrard, Comment, ad Ps.
106 ; Bochart (P/jflfe^, iv. c. 34) adopted this theoiy
(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):'' the stories that have come
down to us appear to be distortions of the ti-adition
that Himyer was the name of apparently the chief
family of Arabia Felix, the great South-Arabian
kingdom, whence the Himyerites, and Homeritae.
Himyer appears 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 redness (see
Mardsid, p. 263, &c.) ; this may pomt to Ophir:
(pOLVi^ is red, and the Phoenicians came from the
Erythraean Sea (Herod, vii. 89). We can scarcely
doubt, on these etymological grounds,' 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.

i If we concede the derivation, it cannot be held that
the Greeks mistranslated the 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, when
thus applied, as meaning both "red" and " white."

3T 2

1012

KED BKA

nexion between the Phoenicians ami the Himyeiites,
or that in this is the true origin of the apjx'tliitiou
of the Red Sea. But when the ethnological side of
the question is coiisiJcred, the evidence is much
streugthenwl. The South-Aiabian kiugtloni was a
Jokt:uiit(> (orSheniite ) nation niixinl with a t'lishite.
This admixture of mces produccil two results (;is
in the somewhat sinular cases of Kgypt, Assyria,
&c.) : a genius for massive architecture, and rare
s«ifaring ability. The Southern Arabians carried
on all tile cuinnieiceof Kgyi't, Palestine, and Arabia,
with India, until shortly before our own era. It is
unnecessary to insist on this Phoenician o!iaracter-
istic, nor on that which made Solomon aill for the
assistance of Hinmr to build the Temple of Jeru-
salem. The I'hdistine, and early Cretan and Carian,
colonists may have been coimected with the South-
Arabian race. If the Assyrian school would trace
the Phoenicians to a t'haldaean or an Assyrian
origin, it might Ije replietl that the Cushites, whence
came Nimrod, pa.ssed along the south coast of
Arabia, and that Berosus '^in Cory, 2nd ed. p. GO)
tells of an early Arab domination of Chaldaea, before
the Assyrian dynasty, a story also preserved by the
Arabian historians (■ Kl-Sles'oodee, Golden Meadows,
MS.). — The i;ed Sea, therelbre, was most probably
the Sea of the lied men. It adds a link to the
curious chain of i-migi-ation of the Phoenicians from
the Yemen to Syria, Tyie, and Sidon, the shoies
and islands of the MediteiTanean, especially the
African coasts of that sea, and to Spain and the
far-distant northei-ly port^ of their commerce ; as
distant, and across oceans as temble, as those reached
by their Himyerite brethren in the Indian and
Chinese Seas.

Ancient Limits. — The most impoi-tant 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. 5j : the tongue of the Ked
Sea has diied up for a distance of at least 50 miles
from its ancient head, and a cultivated and well-
{)eopled province has been changed into a desolate
wildeniess. An ancient canal conveyed the waters
of the Nile to the lied Sea flowing through the
Wadi-t-Timipylat, and inigating 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 imporLint, by water to the
Nile, avoiding the risks of the desert-journey, and
securing water-c-iniage from the Ked Sea to the
Meilitcnjuiean. The drying up of the head of the
gulf apjK'.irs to have been one of the chief causes of
the neglect and ruin of this canal.

The country, for the distance above indicated, is
now a deseit of gravelly saml, with wide patches
about the old sea-bottom, of rank marsh land, now
(Jillfcl the "Bitter Lakes" ("not those of Straboj.
At the northern extremity of this salt waste, is a
small lake sometimes called the lake of Herooi)olis
(the city after which the gulf of Suez was c<dled
the Herobpolite Gulf) : the lake is now Birkct et-

' Comnienn-il by.S<'sOatrLs(Aristot Me-'enr. i. II ; Strab.
I. and xvll.; Plin. IIM. Nat. vi. 20; lliToil. 11. 15«; JHod.
i 3J) 01 by .N> till) II., most probably llie fornier; coulluued

RED SEA

Timsah, " the lake of the Crocodile," and is sup-
posed to mark the ancient head of the gulf. The
ciinal that connected this with the Nile was of
Pharaonic origin.'' It was anciently known as the
" Fossa liegum," and the " canal of Hero." Pliny,
Diodorus, and 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 Heroojiolis), the extension being abandoned on
account of the supposed greater height of the waters
of the Ked Sea. According to Herod, (ii. cap. 158)
it left the Nile (the Tanitic branch, now the canal
of El-Jlo'izz) at Bubastis (Pi-beseth), and a canal
exists at this day in this neighbourhood, which
ap[iears to be the ancient channel. The canal was
four days' voyage in length, and sufficiently broad
tor 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
ilohammadan conquest. Traces of the ancient
channel throughout its entire length to the vicinity
of Bubastis. exist at intervals in the present day
(Descr. do l'^<iypte, E. M. xi. 37-381, and v. 135-
158, 8vo. ed.). — The Amnis Trajmms (Tpa'iavhs
iroT. jit. 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 Pled 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 De'scr. de VE'gypte,
8vo. ed., xi. 359), and the water of the Nile ran
into the sea at El-Kulzura ; but the fomier com-
merce of Egypt was not in any degree restored ;
the canid was opened with the intention of securing
supplies of grain from Egypt in case of famine
in Arabia ; a feeble intercourse with the newly-
important holy cities of Arabia, to provide for the
wants of the pilgrims, was its principal use. In
A.H. 105, El-Mansoor ordered it to be filled up (the
Khitat, Descr. of the Canals), in order to cut off
supplies to the Shiya'ee heretics in El-Medeeneh.
Now 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
a plain of heavy sand, merging into marsh-land
near the Jlediterranean coast, and extending to Pa-
lestine. We learn from El-JIakreezee that a tradi-
tion existed of this plain having been formerly well
cultivated with saffron, safflower, and sugar-cane,
and peopled throughout, from the frontier-town of
El-'Areesh to El-'Abb;Tseh in Wadi-t-Tumeylat
(see Exodus, the, Map; The Khitat, s. v. Jifdr;
comp. Mardsid, ib.). Doubtless the drying up of
the gulf with its canal in the south, and the de-
pression of the land in the north, have converted
this once (if we may believe the tradition, though
wo cannot extend this fertility as far as El-'Areesh)
notoriously-fertile tract into a proverbially sandy
and parched desert. This region, including Wadi-t-
Tumeylat, was piobably the frontier land occupied
in part by the Israelites, and open to the incursions

by Darius Hystaspis, and by Ttol. rhiUuiolphus. Sec
Kncyc. Brit. art. ' Kgypt.'

RED SEA

1013

of tlie wild tribes of the Arabian desert; and the i various granites, serpentines, Breccia Verde, slates,

yeor, as we have given good reason for believing, in
this application, was apparently the ancient head of
the gulf or the canal of the Ked Sea, with its yeorim
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 gi-eatest width may be stated
roughly at about 200 geographical miles; this is
about lat. 16° 30', but the navigable channel is
liere really narrower than in some other poitions,
groups of islands and rocks stretching out into the
sea, between 30 and 40 miles fiom the Arabian
coast, and 50 miles from the African coast. From
shore to shore, its narrowest part is at Ras Beniis,
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 («. 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), Lit. 21° 30',
the port of Mekkeh ; and opens to its extreme width
south of the last named port.

and micaceous, talcose, and other schists " {id. 382).
Gebel-ez-Zeyt, "the mountain of oil," close to the
sea, abounds in jietroleum {id. 385). This coast
is especially interesting in a Biblical point of view,
for 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 all Eastein
monasteries, decayed ; but that of St. Anthony
gives, fiom its monks, the Patriarch of the Coptic
church, i'ovmerly chosen from the Nitrian monas-
teries {id. 381). — South of the "Elba" chain, the
country gradually sinks to a plain, imtil 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 chiefly 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'sA7iite^, Z)escr.
of the Beja, and Descr. of the Pesert of Eydhdh ;

At Ras Mohammad, the Red Sea is split by the ; Quatremere's Essays on these subjects, in his MS-

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 aboTit 90 miles long, from the Straits of
Tiran, to the 'Akabeh [Ei.ATh], 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,
I'ocks, and small islands, which render the channel
intricate, and cause strong currents often of un-
known force and direction ; but in mid-channel.

moires Hist, et Geogr. sur FEgypte, ii. pp. 134, 1 62 ;
and The Genesis of the Earth and of Man, 2nd
ed. p. 109) ; and then, coast-tribes of Abyssinia.

The Gulf of El-'Akabeh (i. 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 entiie barrenness ; the
bottom is a river-like sea, running nearly straight for
its whole length of about 90 miles. The northerly
winds rush down this goi-ge with uncommon fury,
and render its navigation extremely perilous, causing
at the same time strong counter currents ; while

exclusive of the Gulf of Suez, there is generally a \ most of the few anchorages are open to the southerly
width of 100 miles clear, except the Daedalus reef gales. It " has the appearance of a narrow deep

(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'.
.lourneying southwards from Suez, on our left is

ravine, extending nearly a hundred miles in a straight
direction, and the circumjacent hills rise in some
places two thousand feet peipendicularly from the
shore" (Wellsted, ii. 108). The western shore is
the peninsula of Sinai. The Arabian chain of
mountains, the continuation of the southern spurs

the peninsula of Sinai [Sinai] : on the right, is the : of the Lebanon, skii-t the eastern coast, and rise to
desert coast of Egypt, of limestone formation like about 3500 ft., while Gebel Teybet-'Alee near the

the greater part of the Nile valley in Egypt, the
clifis on the sea-margin stretching landwards in a
gi'eat .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 15

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

miles distant. Of the most important is Gebel ; northern extremity, on the Sinaitic side. The sea.

Gliarib, 6000 ft. high ; and as the Straits of Jubal
are passed, the peaks of the primitive range attain a
height of about 4500 to 6900 ft., until the " Elba"
group rises in a huge mass about lat. 22°. Further
inland is the Gebel-ed-Dukhkhiin, the " poi-phyry
mountain " of Ptolemy (iv. 5, §27 ; M. Claudianus,
see Miiller, Geogr. Min. Atlas vii.), 6000 ft. high,
about 27 miles from the coast, where the porphyry
quarries foimerly supplied Rome, and where are
some remains of the time of Trajan (Wilkinson's
Modei-n Egypt and Thebes, ii? 383) ; and besides
these, along this desert southwards are " quarries of

from its dangers, and steiile shores, is entirely des-
titute of boats.

The Ai-abian 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 Tihdmeh, 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, Pescr. 305; Wellsted.) The
mountains of the Hejaz consist of ridges running pa-
rallel towards the interior, and increasing in height as

1014 RED SEA

thev recede CWellsted, ii. 242). Buvckhavdt remarks
that tlie descent on the eastern side of these moun-
toins, like the Lebanon and the whole Syrian range
east of the Dead Sea, is much less than that on the
western ; and tliat the jieaks seen from the east, or
land side, appear mere hills {Anxhia, ;;21 seq.). In
clear weather thev aie visible at a distance of 40 to
70 miles ^WcUst'ed, ii. 242), the distant ranges
have a niwetl jxiinted outline, and are granitic ; at
Wejh, witli horizontal veins of quartz ; nearer the
sea many of the hills are fossiliforous limestone,
while the beach hills •' consist of liglit-coloured
sandstone, fronted by and containing large quan-
tities of shells .and masses of coral" (Wellsted, ii.
243). Coi-al also " entei-s largely into the compo-
sition of some of the most elevated hills." The
more remarkable mountains are Jcbel 'Eyn-Unmi (or
'Evnuwunnii, Mardsid, s. v. 'V^\-\\, "Ovvi] of Ptol.),
6000 11. 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, gi-adually ascending with a mode-
rate elevation to the distmcc of six or seven miles,
when it rises abruptly to hills of great height, those
near Mowllahh temiinating 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 1 have seen of enormous icebergs" (ii. 176;
see also the Admiralty Chart, and Wiiller's Geogr.
Min.). A little north of Yembo' is a remarkable
group, the pvramidal 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,
.1. Riis el-Kuril 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 Tihiimeh {Arabia, 0.5 seqq.). The
chain continuc-s the whole length of the sea, termi-
nating in the highlands of the Yemen. The Arabian
mountains are generally fertile, agreeably ditt'erent
from the fvarched jilains below, and their own bare
granite ])eaks above. The higlilands ami mountain
summits of the Yemen, " Arabia the Happy," the
Jebel a-s distinguished from the plain, are preci-
pitous, lofty, and fertile (Niebuhr, Dcscr. 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 .luddah] it is more sandy and less
elevateil: (he inlets and harboui's of the former
tract may be styled coves ; in the- latter they are
lagoons" (Wellsted, ii. 244). — The coral of the Red
.Sea is reniaikably abundant, and beautifully co-
loui'cil and variegated. It is often red, but the more
lommon kind is white; and of hewn blocks of this,
m.iny of the Arabian towns are built.

The earliest navigation of the Red Sea (passing
by the prc-historiial Phoenicians) is mentioned by
Herodotus. '• Sesostris Miiimcses II.) was the first
who, passing the Arabian (!nlf in a fleet of long
vessels, reduced under his authorifv the inhabitants
of the co.-ist l)oivlering the Erythraean Sea ; pro-
ceeding ftill further, he cf.me to a sea which,
from the great number of its shoals, was not navi-
gnble;" and after another war against I'thiopia he
»et ujt u litela ou the promontory of Dira, near

RED SEA

the straits of the Arabian Gulf. Three 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 of El-'Akabeh,
it will be seen that this narrow sea is almo.'^t
without any safe anchorage, except at the island
of Graia near the 'Akabeli, and about 50 miles
southward, the harbour of Edh-Dhahab. It is
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 supposal to
have much altered, and which were besides part of
the wilderness of the wandering ; and the Edomites
were pastoral Arabs, unlike the seafaring Himyerites.
Jehoshaphat also " made ships of Thai-shish 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-
structeil a number of ships in the Arabian gulf,
and the remains of his works existed in the time of
Herodotus (ii. 159), who also tells us that these
ships were manned by Phoenician sailors.

The fashion of the ancient ships of the Red Sea,
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 fiom Eydhiib on the Egyptian coast to
Juddah: " Their 'jelebehs' (P. Lobo, ap. 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
th? fat of the kirsh (squalus carcharias ; F«rskal,
Descr. Animalimn, p. viii., No. 19). . . . The sails
of these jelebehs are of mats made of the dom-
palm " (the Khitnt, " 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 Ea.st either to the Red Sea or
the Persian Gulf. The people of 'Oman, the
-south-ea-st province of Arabia, were among the fore-
most of these navigators (El-Mes'oodee's Golden
Meadows, MS., awfThe Accounts of Two Moham-
medan Travellers of the Ninth Century). It was

KED 8KA

1015

Kl-liasi'aU. From a Drawing by Colonel Chesney.

customary, to avoid probably tlie 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 appeal-
to have sailed about the autumnal equinox, and
returned in December or the middle of January
(Pliny, N. H. vi. cap. xxiii. §26; comp. I'eripl.
passim). St. Jerome says that the navigation was
extremely tedious. At the present day, the voyages
are periodical, and guided by the seasons ; bi.it
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 p;issage of
the Red Sea ; and it was the " tongue of the Egyji-
tian Sea." It was also the seat of the Egyptian
trade in this sea and to the Indian Ocean. Heioopolis
is doubtless the same as Hero, and its site has been
probably identified with the modern Aboo-Keshevd,
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-
Kulztini, 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 water.
On the shore of the Heroopolite gulf was also
Arsinoe founded by Ptolemy Philadelphns : its site
has not been settled. Berenice, founded by the
s:\me, on the southern fiontier 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 [
of the modem town El-Kuseyr, which now forms !
the point of communication with the old route to
Ooptos. On the Arabian coast the pi-incipal ports
are Mu'eyleh, Yembo' (the port of El-Medeeneh),
Juddah (the port of Mekkeh), and Mukhk, by

us commonly written Mocha, The Red Sea in
most parts affords anchorage for country-vessels
well acquainted with its intricacies, and able to
creep along the coast among the reets 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-
Sharni, at the southern extremity of the peninsula
of Sinai, is much frequented.

The commerce of the Red Sea was, in very
ancient times, unquestionably great. The earliest
records tell of the ships of the Egyptians, the Phoe-
nicians, and the Arabs. 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
most important of the ancient world. That all
this traffic found its way to the head of the
Heroopolite gulf seems proved by the absence o.'"
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 difhcult ; it destroyed the former
anchorages, and made it necessary to carry mer-
chandise across the desert to the Nile. This change
ap]ieais to have been one of the main causes of tht
decay of the commerce of Egypt. We have seen
tliat the long-voyaging ships shifted their cargoes
to Red Sea craft at the straits ; and Ptolemy Phiia-
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. Stiabo 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 vaiied greatly, in-
fluenced by the decaying state of Egypt and the
route to Palmyra (until the fall of the lattei). But
e^en its best state at this time cannot have beei;

RED SEA, PASSAGE OF

they, Zur Erdkunde d. Alt. Aegyptens, map vi.),
and the cliief modern route from Cairo to Sp-ia
piisses aloncj the Wadi-t^Tumeylat and leads to
Gaza (Wilkhison, 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). Here
the Wadi-t-f umeylat was probably left, as it is
cultivable and terminates in the desert. After leav-
ing this place the dii'ection 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 Isiael, that they turn [or ' return ']
and encamp [or ' that they encamp again,'
•"IjriM -Up'^l] 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 )-endering 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 extendeil
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 tlie 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 encampeil 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 aie 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
(Julf of Suez, and not far south of the position
where we suppose the head of the gulf to ha>-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 p;issed near the
present head of the gulf. Local tradition is in
it<! favour, but it must l)e remembered that local
tradition in Egypt and the neighbouring countries,
judging from the evidence of history, is of veiy
little value. The Muslims suppose Memphis to
have been the city at which the Pharaoh of the
I'^xodus 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
" Valley of the VVandering." From it the traveller
reaches the sea beneath the lofty Gebel-et-Takah,»

• In orrtcrUi favour tho opinion tlint the Israelites took been changed to Gcbel-'Atakah, as If signifying "the
UiK route by ihc\Vildl-l-T.'.h, tbis iinnii-.Ciebel.ct-Tukah | MounUiin of Deliverance;" though, to have this signi-
(l4i wlilch il is dim. lilt to nnslgn a probablr nu-uiiiiig), bus j lication. it should rather be ticbelel-Atakah, the other

iok; ked sea, passage of

such as to make us believe that the 120 ships
Killing from Myos Hormos, mentioned by Strabo
(ii. V. §12), was other than an annual convoy.
The wai-s of Heradius and Khosroes affected the
trade of Egypt as they intluenced that of the
Persian gulf. Egypt had fallen low at the time of
the Anib occupation, iuid yet it is curious to note
that Ale.\:mdria even then ret;iincd the shadow of its
t'onner glory. Since the time of Mohammad the Rod
Sea trade has been insignificant. [E. S. P.]

RED 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. Paid 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
ai'ise are the place of the pass.age, the narrative, and
the impoi-tiince of the event in Biblical history.

1. It is usual to suppose that the most northern
place at which the Hetl Sea could have been crossed
is the present he.ad of the Gulf of Suez. This sui>
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 ])eriod, 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-
Timsiih, or " Lake of the Crocodile," and the more
southern Bitter Lakes, the northernmost part of the
foiTner 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 deejier in its northernmost part.

It is necessary to endeavour to ascertain the
route of the Israelites befoie we can attempt to
discover where they crossed the sea. The point
from whicli they started was liameses, a place cer-
tainly in the Land of Goshen, which we identify
with the \V;idi-t-Tumcylat. [Rameses ; GosHen.]
.Mter the mention that the people journeyed from
Rameses to Succoth, and befoie that of their de-
jiarture fiom 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 fiom its tenour, and from its being
followed by the stiitemont that ,Iosei)li's bones were
taken by Mf>ses with him, which must refer to the
commencement of the journey. " ,\nd it came to
pass, when Phai-ioii had let the jieoj)le go, that (iod
led them not [by] the way of the land of the Phi-
li.stines, although that [was] near ; for God said.
Lest ))er;ulventuie the peojilo repent when thev see
war, and fhi-y return to Egypt: but God caused
the peojilc to turn [by] the way of the wilderness
of the Rwl .Sea" MCx.'xili. 17, 18). It will be seen
by referenw to the map .'dready given [vol. i. p.
.'■i98] that, from the \V:',li-t-'|"umeyl;Tt, whether
froin its eastein end or from anv other part, the
route to Pale.-.tino liy way of (iaza through the
Pliilistine territory is near at hand. In the Roman
time the route to (Inza from Memphis and lleliopolis
|>ass<?<l the western end of the Wiuli-t-Tumeylat, as
may l»e seen by the /tiiuniri/ of Antoiuniis yWiv-

RED SEA, PASSAGE OF

which rises on the north and shuts off all escape in
that direction, excepting by a naiTow 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
seem 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 have been intended. The
deseit-way from Memphis is equally poetical, but
how is it possible to recognise in it a route which
seems to have had two da3-s' 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
re;iched 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 iu-
ci-edible. We therefore think that the only opinion
warranted by the naiTative 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
naiTative as to amount to a denial of the occurrence
of the event, and indeed is scarcely worth men-
tioning.

The last camping-place was before Pi-hahiroth.
It appears that Migdol was behind Fi-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„e a reedy tract, and to be still
presented 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 saifi 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 loc<ality, 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
torts, in this region. The other names do not de-
scribe natm-al localities. The nearness of Pi-h;dii-
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 e.xact extent of the sea at

EEU SEA, PASSAGE OF 1017

the time is an additional difficulty. [i^xODCS, the ;

Pl-»AinilOTH.]

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*" wind, whence we may reasonably ini'er that
it 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
gre^ater. On the whole v^e 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 pui--
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 fiom 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 DB''?B', rendered in the A. V. " cap-
tains.'' 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
respecti\-ely pleonastic and poetical. There is no
evidence in the records of the ancient Egyptians
that they used cavalry, and, therefore, had the
Biblical nan-ative 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 compaiison to the Israelite
nudtitude, encumbered with women, children, and
cattle, Phm-aoh overtook the people " encamping by
the sea" (9). When the Israelites saw the o)>pressor'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

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

>> The LXX. has " south," instead of " east." The
Heb. 2'''7p, lit. " in front," may, however, indicate the
whole distance between the two extreme points of sunrise.

those of the two solstices, and hence it is not limited to
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-
vanced by one road into Belgium, in the AV'aterloo cam-
paign, his column would have been sixty miles in lengtn.

1018 RED SEA, PASSAGE OF

valley of Uppr Kgyp* ^'^'^ abundant sepulchral
p-ottoes, (if which the entrances are conspicuously
seen from the liver and the fields it watei-s : in the
sandy slopes at the loot of tlie mountains are pits
without number and many built tombs, all of
ancient times. No doubt the plain of Lower I'-gvpt,
to which Memphis, with part of its far-extending
necropolis, belonged pilitic^lly 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 tew c;\ses 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 fiom the narra-
tive that Moses did not know at this time how the
l)eople would be saved, and spoke only from a hea]t
full of faith, for we read, " And the Lord said
unto Moses, VVherefore criest thou unto me ? speak
unto the children of Israel, that they go fonvard :
but lift thou up thy rod, and stietch 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
arnii&s, the fugitives and the pursuers, were en-
camped near together. Between them was the
pillar of the cloud, darkness to the F^gyptians and a
light to the Israelites. The monuments of Egypt
jvjrtray an encampment of an army of Rameses II.,
during a uimpaign in Syria ; it is well-planned and
cai-efuUy guarded : the rude modern Arab encamp-
ments bring before us that of Israel on this me-
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 ban'ier 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
night, and maile the sea diT [land], and the waters
wei-e dividfl. And the children of Israel went
through the midst of the sea upon the dry [ground] :
and the wateis [were] a wall unto them on their
ric'ht hand, and on their left" (21, 22, comp. 29).
The namitive distinctly states that a path was made
through the sea, and that the waters were a wall
on either hand. The tenn " wall " does not appear
to oblige us to supiwse, as many have done, that
the sea sUkA up like a clitf on either side, but
Khould rather be considered to mean a barrier, as
the fonner idea imjilies 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 Egypti.-ms liiilowed. In the morning watch,
the l%>t third or fourth of the night, or the period
Ix'fore sunrise, Phaianh's army was in full pureuit
in the divide<l sea, and wius there miraculously
troubled, so that the Egyptians sought to flee
(2')-'27)). Then wa.s Mom-s commanded again to
stretch out his hand, and the sea leturnal to its
Ktipngth.nnd overwhelmed the Ej^yptians, of whom
not one remaiu'-d alive (20-28). The sfcitement
w so «?»plirit that there could be no reasonable

RED SEA, PASSAGE OF

doubt that Pharaoh himself, the great offender,
was at last made an example, and peiished with
his aiTnv. did it not seem to be distinctly stated
in Psalm cxxx\-i. that he wxs included in the same
destruction (lo). The sea cast up the dead Egyp-
tians, whose bodies the Israelites saw upon the
shore.

In a later passage some particulars are mentioned
which are not distinctly stated in the narrative
in Exodus. The place is indeed a ]ioetical 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 immei-sion or sprink-
ling;, and the latter could have here occuiTed : 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).
ISIoses seems to have smig this song with the men,
Miriam with the women also singing and dancing,
or perhaps there were two choruses (2U, 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 fi'om 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 imporfcince 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 iSict of Jewish history. Not
the call of Abraham, not tfle 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 G(xl'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 t-hat like great heights increasing dist-
ance only gives them moie majesty. So no doubt
was this remembered long after those were dead
who saw the sea return to its strength and the
warriors of Phai-aoh 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
nf the time in Egyptian history to which this event
should be assigned. The date of the Exodus ac-

EEED

cording to different chronologers varies more than
three hundred years ; the dates of the Egyptian
dynasties ruling during this period of three liundi-ed
years vary full one hundi'ed. The period to which
tlie 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 ha\-e 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
can 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 pi'obably have been
local, and perhaps indistinct.''

Endeavours have been made to explain away the
miraculous character of the passage of the Red Sea.
It has been argued that Jloses might have carried
the Israelites over by a ford, and that an unusual
tide might have overwhelmed the P^gyptians. But
no real diminution of the wonder is thus effected.
I low 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 f;ict of the passage is so well attested
that it woidd be uncritical to doubt it were it
recorded on mere human authority. Since the fact
is undeniable an attempt is made to explain it away.
Thus the 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
differently stated, are more easily attacked. [R. S. P.]

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

1. Agmun (JIDJX : Kp'iKos, &v9pa^, fxiKpos.
TeAos : circulus, fervens, refrenans) occurs Job
xl. 26 (A. V. xli. 2), " Canst thou put agnion "
(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 tail,
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

REED

1019

d While this article is going through the press, M.
Cliabas has piiblish'id a curious paper, in which he con-
jectures that certain labourers employed by the Pharaohs
of the xixth and xxlh dynasties in the quarries and
elsewhere are the Hebrews. Their name reads aperiu
or APERUi, which might correspond to "Hebrews"
D'''l!iy . but his finding them still in Egypt under

Cgperaceae or that of Gramineae. The term is
allied closely to the Hebrew agam (D3N), which,

like the corresponding Arabic ajam {jt.ssS)i denotes

a marshy pool or reed-bed." (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 Rosenmiiller {Bih. Bot. j). 184) and
Winer {Feahcorterh. ii. 484). Celsius has argued
in favour of the Arundo phragmitis {Hieroh. 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 kdneh ( Hip) is the generic term for
reeds in genei'al. The Armulo 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,
Cary, Mason Good, &c. The agmon of Job xli. 20
seems to be derived from an Arabic root signifying to
" be burning : " hence the fervens of the V'ulg. — The
Phragmitis belongs to the Nat. order Graminaceae.
2. Gome, (KDi : ■trdiretpos, fii^Kivos, 'i\os :
scirpens, scirpus, papyrus, juncxis), translated
"rush" and "bulrush" by the A. V., without
doubt denotes the celebrated paper-reed of the
ancients (^Papyrus antiquorimi), a plant of the
Sedge family, Cyperaceae, which formerly was
common in some parts of Egypt. The Hebrew
word 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 Kdneh, the usual generic
term for a "reed," in Is. xxxv. 7, and in Job viii.
11, where it is asked, " Can the papyrus plant grow
without mire?" The modern Arabic name of this

plant is Berdi (tJij-j). According to Bruce

the modern Abyssinians use boats made of the
papyrus reed; Ludolf (Hist. Aethiop. 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 navigatois. Wilkinson
(Anc. Aegypt. ii. 96, ed. 1854) says that the light
of growing and selling the papyrus plants belonged
to the government, who made a proHt by its niono-

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

(Freytag.)

|. " Densi frutices, arundinetum, palus,"

1020

REED

poly, and thinks other species of the Cyperaceae
must be unde.^too.1 as artonling all the various
ai-ticles, such as baskets, canoes, sails, sandals, ice,
which have been said to have been made from the
1^ papvrus. Considering that Egypt abounds in
Cupenlceae, many kinds of which might have
served for forming canoes, &■.:., it is improbable
that the papvrus alone should have been used lor
such a purpose; but that the true ;j'7>^/-ms was used
for boats there can be no doubt, if the testimony ot
Theophnistus (Hist. I'l. iv. 8, §4), Pliny (F. A.
xiii. 11), Plutirch and other ancient writers, is to
be beheved.

I'apyrui aittii^uorum.

From the soft cellular portion of the stem the
ancient materia! cdled 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 tiiin slices in tlie direction of their
length, and tiicse being laid on a flat board in
succession, similar slices were placed over them
at right angles, and their surfaces being cemented
together by a soi-t of glue, and subjected to a
proper degree of pressure and well dried, the
papyrus was completed ; the length of the slices
deiieiided of course on the breadth of the intended
sheet, as that of the sheet on tlie number of
slices placed in succession beside each other, so
that thougli the breadtii was limited tiie papynis
might be extended to an indefinite length."
[Wi'.iriNO.] The papyrus reed is not now found
in K:.;ypt; it grows, however, in Syria. Dr. Hooker
saw it on tiic Ijanks of Lake Tiberias, a few miles
iiortii of tiie town : it appears to have existed

REED

there since the days of Theophrastus and Pliny,
who t'ive a very accurate description ot this iii-
terestfng plant. Theophrastus {Hist. Plant, iv.
8 §4)%ays, "The papyrus grows also in Syria
around the lake in which the sweet-scented 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 Jati'a. Dr. Hooker believes it is
common in some parts of Syria : it does not occur
anvwhere else in Asia ; it was seen by Lady Callcott
on' the banks of the Anapus, near Syracuse, and Sir
Joseph Banks possessed paper made of papyrus from
the Lake f>f Thrasymene {Script. Herb. p. 379).
The Hebrew name of this plant is derived from a
root which means "to absorb," compare Lucan
{Phars. iv. 1 36).'> 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 tlien eat
it " (Herod, ii. 92 ; see also Theophr. Hist. Plant.
iv. 9). The statement of Theophrastus with regard
to the sweetness and Havour 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. Ecs. Afric. Nat. ii.
350, note), " is rather clearer than the Egyptian ;"
but other wxiters say the stem is neither juicy nor
1 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 (niiy: rh aX' "rb x^'^P"" ■^«''") '^
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 dillerent name. " Aroth"
says Kimchi, " is the name to designate pot-herbs
and green ])lants." The LXX. translate it by
" all the green herbage " (comp. IPIN, Gen. xli. 2,
and see Flag). The word is derived from 'drah,
" 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

C^l jx), locus apertus, spatiosics. Michaelis {SuppL

No. 1973), Rosenmuller {Schol. in Jcs. xix. 7),
Gesenius {Thcs. s, v.), Maurer {Comment, s. v.),
and Simonis {Lex. Heb. s. v.), are all in favour of
this or a similar explanation. Vitringa {Comment,
in Isaiain) was of opinion that the Hebrew term
denoted the papyrus, and he has been followed by
,1. G. Ungcr, who has published a dissertation on this
subject {I)e nny, hoc est de Papyro frutice, von
der Papier-Stande ad is. xix. 7 ; Lips. 1731, 4to.).
4. Kdnch (njp : KaXa/xos, KaXa/xia-Kos, KaXd-
fiLUOs, irrixos, ajKciv, C"y6s, irvOfi'fiP : culmus,

b " Conseritiir bibula Memphitis cymba papyro."
•^ It is (lillicult to see how the Vulg. understood the
term.

REED

calamus, arundo, fistula, statcrd), the generic name
of a reed of any kind ; it occui-s in numerous pas-
sages of the 0. 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, kaneh denotes the bone

EEED

1021

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. KoXaiiOS may signify the " stalk" of plants
(Mark xv. 36 ; Matt. xxni. 48, that of the hyssop,
but this is doubtful), or " a reed" (Matt. xi. 7,
xii. 20; Luke \-ii. 24; Mark xv. 19); or a
"measuring rod" (Rev. xi. 1, xxi. 15, 16); or a
" pen " (3 John 13). Strand {Flor. Palaest. 28-30)
gives the following names of the reed plants of
Palestine : — Saccharum officinale, Cypenis papyrus
{Papyrus antiquorum), C. rotundas, 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, Milium arundinaceum
et plusieurs Cyperac^." The Arundo donax, the
A. Aegyptiaca (?) of Bove' (Ibid. p. 72) is com-
mon on the banks of the Nile, and may perhaps be
"the staff of the brui:ed 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 dry
culms of this huge grass are in much demand for
fishing-rods, &c.

Some kind of fi-agrant reed is denoted by the
word kene/i (Is. xliii. 24; Ez. xxvii. 19 ; Cant. iv.
14), or more fully by keneh bosem iU^'l npjp).

see Ex. xxx. 23, or by kdneh hattob (lit2n HJp),

Jer. vi. 20 ; which the A. V. renders " sweet cane,"
and " calamus." Whatever may be the substance
denoted, it is certain that it was one of foreign
importation, "from a far country" (Jer. \\. 20).
Some writers (see Sprengel, Com. in Dioscor. i.
xvii.) have sought to identify the kdneh bosem with
the Acorus calmnus, the "sweet sedge," to which
they refer the Ka.\afj.os 6.po>iJi.ariK6s of Dioscorides
(i. 17), the KaXa/xos evwSrjs of Theophrastus
{Hist. Plant, iv. 8 §4), which, according to this
last named writer and Pliny (N. H. xii. 22),
formerly grew about a lake " between Libanus and
another mountain of no note ;" Strabo identifies this
with the Lake of Gennesaret {Geog. x\n. c. 755,
ed. Kramer). Burckhardt was unable to discover
any sweet-scented reed or rush near the lake, though
he saw many tall reeds there. " High reeds grow
along 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"
intended, 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
refers the KaKajxas a.pctiiJ.ariK6s 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 it 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 axo7vos'
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 KdAajxas
apu>fxartK6s of Dioscorides ; it may be represented by
Dr. Royle's plant or by the Andropogon Schoenanthus,
the lemon grass of India and Arabia. [W. H.]

Androi>o<ion scho^uutMi

1022 EEELALA.H

REELAI'AH (n'^yi: 'PeeXias: Bahelala).
One of the chiKlren of the proviuce who went up
with Zerul.bubel (Ezr. ii. 2). In Neh. vii. 7 he is
called Kaamiau, and in 1 Esd. v. 8 IJeesaias.

REE'LIUS ('PeeAias). This name occupies the
place of liiGVAi in Ezr. ii. 2 (1 Esd. v. 8). The
list in the A'ulgate is so coiTiipt that it is ditlicult
to trace either.

REESAI'AS ('PTjo-ofos: EUinens). The same
as UEiii.AiAii or Haamiaii (1 Esd. v. 8).

REFINER (P|nV ; «l^yp)- The refiner's art
w;is essential to the working of the precious metals.
It consisted in the separation of the dross from tlie
pure ore, which was effected by reducing the nietiil
to a fluid state by the appliaition 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 '' usually applied to refining had
reference to the process of melting : occasionally,
however, the effect of the process is described by a
term "= borrowed from the filtering of wine. The
instruments required by the refiner were a crucible
or furnace,"* 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 ofi' at the proper moment.
[Minks; ii. 368 6.] 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 " K (lb. ver. 27). [\V. L. B.]

REFUGE, CITIES OF. [Cities of Re-
fuge.]

RE'GEM (On: 'PayeV; Alex. 'P6-ye> : Ee-
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 iissumption.

RE'GEM-MEL'ECH (^^D DJ"): 'Ap&,a,ip
6^atrt\tvs; .\ lex. 'Ap;8f o-eo-ep 6/3.: L'o;jommelech).
Ihe names of .Slierczer .and kegem-nielech occur in
an oljscure piussage of Zechaiiah (vii. 2). They
were sent on behalf of some of the captivity to
make inquiries at the Temple concerning fastincr.
In the .v. V. the subject of the verse appears to be
the captive Jews in Babylon, and Bethel, or " the
house of (iod ," is regai-ded as the accusative after

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

■* T^S- TIk! term tj^V'? occurs twice only (Prov.
xvll 3, xxvil. ai ; A. V. •' finliig.pot"). The expression
•n I ». xll. 6, rendered in the A. V. " furnace of cartb " Is
or doubtful bigiiincalion, but certainly caunot signify that

REHABIAH

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 aj)-
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 Kabmag being asso-
ciated in Jer. xxxix. 3, 13. On referring to Zech.
vii. 5, the expression " the people of the land "
seems to indiaite that those who sent to the Temple
were not the captive Jews in Babylon, but those
who had letunied 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.]

EEGION-EOUND-ABOUT, THE {v xe-
pix'^pos). 'I'his 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
("I33n, literally "the round"), a word the topo-
graphical application of which is not clea)-, 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. 23 ; 1 K. vii. 46 ; 2 Chr. iv. 17 ; Neh. iii. 22,
xii. 28). It is in this less restricted sense that
irfpixcupos 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 ^ 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
Joidan, and also resembling it in being very thickly
populated (Matt. xiv. 35 ; Mark vi. 55 ; Luke vi.
37, vii. 17). [G.]

REHABI'AH (H^nni in 1 Clir. xxiii. ; else-
where •in''3n"l: 'Po/3ia; Alex. 'Paa/3io in 1 Chr.
xxiii. ; 'Pao/Stas 1 Chr. xxiv., 'Vafi'ttxs ; Alex. 'Paa-
^ias 1 Chr. xxvi. : Rohohia, Rahabia in 1 Chr.

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

8 jinS. The A. V. adopts an incorrect puuctuatiou,
fin3, and renders it " a tower."

i" Thus Jerome—" rcgioncs in circuilu per quas nicdius
Jordancs fluit."

REHOB

xxvi.). The only son of Eliezer, the son of Moses,
and the father of Isshiah, or Jeshaiah (1 Chr. xxiii.
17, xxiv. 2], xxvi. 25). His descendants weie
namerous.

RE'HOB (lint: 'Paaj3 : Eohoh). 1. The
father of Hadadezer king of Zobah, whom David
smote at the Euphrates (2 Sam. viii. 3, 12).
Josej)lius {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 Syiian, for we find a district of
Syria called Rehob, or Beth-Rehob (2 Sam. x. 6, 8).

2. ('Poco/3.) A Levite, or family of Levites, who
sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 11).

[W. A. W.]

RE'HOB (3n"l). The name of more than one
place in the extreme north of the Holy Land.

1. {'Padfi ; Alex. 'Poco0: Rohoh.y- 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 Buhda of the
modern Arabs, ieems to be roughly designated.
This, and the consideration of the improbability that
the spies went farther than the upper end of the
Jordan valley (Kob. 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-iehob has yet
been met with in this direction. Dr. Robinson pro-
poses to identify it with Ilunin, an ancient foiiress
in the mountains X.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
Ruhaiheh exists in the plain o( Jenid, 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
Porter).

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,*^ 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. 'Vow^ : Rohoh), 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 naniM 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. ('PaaO; Alex. 'Paco^S: Rohob, Rochob.) Asher
contained another Rehob (Josh. xix. 30) ; but the
situation of this, like the former, remains at present

" Targum Pseudojon. HVOT'S, i.e. TrAareiai, streets;
and Samaritan Vers. ^XHS-

REHOBOAM

1023

unknown. One of the two, it is difficult to say
which, was allotted to the Gershouite Levites (Josh,
xxi. 31 ; 1 Chr. vi. 75), and of one its Canaanite
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. '.',0.
This, Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, " Roob")
confuse with the Rehob of the spies, and place four
Roman miles from Scythopolis. The place they
refer to still surNives as Rehab, 3k miles S. of
Beisan, but their identification of a town in that
position with one in the territory of Asher is obvi-
ously inaccurate. TG.]

REHOBO'AM (DVnni, " enlarger of the
people " — see Ex. xxxiv. 2-1, and compare the name
ZvpvS7]fj.os : 'PoPodfi: Roboam), son of Solomon,
by the Ammonite princess Naamah (1 K. xiv. 21,
31), and his successor (1 K. xi. 43). Fiom the
eai'liest 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 Ephraimites
show a spirit of resentful jealousy when any enter-
prise is undertaken without their concurrence and
active participation. From them had spiung
Joshua, and afterwards (by his place 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. 4' P- P- 162), which secluded
it from Palestine just as Palestine by its geogra-
phical character was secluded from the world, it had
stood very much aloof from the nation [Judah],
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 Sara. ii. 4), while the other tribes
adhered to Saul's family, thereby anticipating the
final disruption which was afterwards to rend the
nation pennanently 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 fiom 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. sii. 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. BO, 67, &c.
in illustration of these remarks. Solomon's reign,
from its sevei-e taxes and other oppressions, aggra-
vated the discontent, and latterly, trom 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 of

nim.

1024

EEHOBOAM

strong hand was withdrawn the crisis came. Reho-
lioain selected Sheclicm as tlie i)lace of his coronation,
probjibly as an act of concession to the Ephraimites,
and perhaps in deterence to the suggestions of those
old and wise coiuisellors of his father, whose advice
he afterwards unha])pily 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 cleai-.
The peojile demanded a remission of the severe bur-
dens irajwsed by Solomon, and Kehoboam promised
them an answer in three days, during which time
he consulted tii-st his father's counsellors, and then
the young men " that were grown up with him,
and whicli stood before him," whose answer shows
how greatly during Solomon's later years the cha-
racter of the Jewish court had dcgeneiated. Reject-
ing the advice of the elders to conciliate the people
at the beginning of his reign, and so make them
" his servmits for ever," he returned as his reply,
in the true spirit of an Eastern despot, the frantic
bi-avado of his contemponu-ies : " Jly little finger
shall be thicker than my lather's loins. ... I will
add to your yoke; my father hath chastised you
with whijjs, but I will chastise you with scorpions "
(i. e. scourges furni^hed with sharp points *). There-
upon arose the formidable song of insun-ection, heard
once l^fore when the tribes quaiTelled 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 !

Rehobaam sent Adoram or Adoniram, who had been
chief receiver of tiie tribute during the reigns of his
father and his grandfather (1 K. iv. 6; 2"Sam. xx.
24), to reduce the lebels 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 in these transactions. Ac-
cording to 1 K'. xii. 3 he was summoned by the
Ephraimites from Egypt (to which country he had
flal fi-ora the anger of Solomon) to be their spokes-
man at Reholwam's coronation, and actually made
the spech 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 insui-rection and Rehoboam's
Hight, " when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was
come again, they sent and called him unto the con-
gi-egation an<l 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 JerolM)am in this chapter till ver. 20, substi-
tuting in ver. 3 for " Jeroboam and all the congre-
gation of Israel came and spoke unto I'lehoboam " the
wonis, Kai i\d\ri<T(v 6 \abs irphs rhv /8a(riA.eo
'Po0o(i/J.. So too Jeroboam's name is omitted by
the LXX. in ver. 12. Moreover we find in the
LXX. a long supplement to this 12th chapter, evi-
dr-ntiy ancient, and at least in parts authentic, con-
taining fuller detJiils of Jeioboam's biography than
the Hebrew. [Ji;itoitOAii ] In this we read that
after Solomon's death he returned to his native
jdace, Sarim in Ephraim, which he fbrtitied, and
live<i there quietly, watching the turn of events,
till the long-expected rebellion broke out, when the

• .S"> 111 Ijitlii, icorpio, according to l.siUoro {Orign. v. 27),
In •• vlr;{n mxlcsa ct aciileula quia arcualo vulnerc in torpas
UiOigilur ■' (/-accujIxUi, h. v.).

REHOBOAM

Ephraimites heard (doubtless through his own
agency) that he had returned, and invited him to
Shechem to assume the cro\vn. From the same
supplementary narrative of the LXX. it would
appear 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 fonner
event, Jeroboam requested from the king of Egypt
leave to return to his native country. This the
king tried to prevent by gi\nng him his sister-in-law
in marriage : but on the biilh of his child Abijah,
Jeroboam renewed his I'equest, which was then
gi-anted. 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 ai-my 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 ; 1 K. 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 iu 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 Muevis, came and settled in the southern
kingdom and added to its power. But Rehoboam
did not check the introduction of heathen aboiniiia-
tions into his capital : the lascivious worship of
Ashtoreth was allowed to exist by the side of the
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 (1 K. xiv. 22-24). These evils were
punished and put down by the terrible cjilamity 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), w;is
succeeded by the 22nd, of Bubastites, whose first
sovei-eign, Shishak (Sheshonk, Sesonchis, ^ovcraKi/x),
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
Ilchoboam 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
smsdler size (1 K. x. 16, 17), which were carried
before him when he visited the temple iu state.
We are told that after the Egyptians had retired,
his v;iin and fiiolish successor comforted himself by
substituting shields of brass, which were solemnly

BEHOBOTH

borne before him in procession by the body-guard,
as if nothing had been changed since his father's
time (Ewald, Geschichtc des V. I. iii. 348, 464).
.^hishak's success is commemorated by sculptures
discovered by Champollion on the outside of the
gi-eat temple at Karnak, where among a long list
of captured towns and provinces occurs the name
Melchi Jiulah (kingdom of Judah). It is said that
the features of the captives in these sculptures are
immistakeably Jewish (Rawlinson, Herodotus, ii.
o76, and Bampton Lectures, p. 126; Buusen,
Egypt, iii. 242). After this 2:reat humiliation the
moral condition of Judah seems to have improved
(2 Chr. xii. 12), and the rest of Kehoboam's life to
have been unmarked by any events of impoiiance.
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
the LXX. already mentioned (inserted after 1 K.
xii. 24) we read that he was 16 yeai"S old at his
accession, a misstatement probably founded on a
wrong interpretation of 2 Chr. xiii. 7, where he is
called "young" (i.e. new to his work, inexpe-
rienced) and " tender-hearted " (33?"T]n, wanting

in resohition 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, Jlahalath, Abiliail, and IMaachah were all
of the royal house of Jesse : Jlaachah he loved best
of all, and to her son Abijah he bequeathed his
kingdom. The text of the LXX. followed in this
article is Tischendorf' s edition of the Vatican MS.,
Leipsic, 1850. [G. E. L. C]

EE'HOBOTH (nuh"! ; Samar. nn'-m :

evpvxa^pia,; Veneto-Gk. ai UXaTelai : 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
promise. 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 anyv.-here,
the wells Sitnah, Esek, and Rehoboth, should be
searched for. A Wady EuJiaibeh, containing the
rains of a town of the same name, with a large
well,*" 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,

•> Dr. Robinson 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 and good water." Who shall
decide on t?stimony so curiously contradictory .'

VOL. II.

REHOBOTH, THE CITY 1025

and more than that distance S. of the most probable
situation of Gerar. It therefore seems unsafe with-
out further proof to identify it with Rehoboth, as
Rowlands (in WiUiams' Holy City, i. 465), Stewart
( Tent and Khan, 202), and Van de Velde '■ (3fe-
inoir, 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 Paihaibeh 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 Isa;ic's life to a much narrower circle.
The wells of the patriaixhs were shown near Ash-
kelon in the time of Origen, 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.]

RE'HOBOTH, THE CITY (TV nhhn, i. e.
Rechoboth'Ir; Samar. nnm; Sam.Vers.« pt3D :
'Poco/So) /8Tr($Ais; Alex. 'Pow^ois : plateae cieitatis).
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 Ptahabeh 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 Khabur. Both
are said to contain extensive ancient remains. That
on the eastern bank bears the affix of 7nalik or
royal, and this Bunsen {Bibelwerk) and Kalisch
{Genesis, 261) propose as the representative of
iiehoboth. Its distance from Kalah-Sherghat and
Ninirtid (nearly 200 miles) is perhaps an obstacle
to this identification. Sir H. Rawlinson (^Athen-
aeum, April 15, 1854) suggests Selerrdyah in the
immediate neighbourhood of Kalah, " where there
are still extensive ruins of the Assyrian period,"
but no subssquent 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, Realicb. " Rechoboth
Ir "). But Sittacene was a district, and not a city
as Rehoboth-Ir necessarily was, and, farther, 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 Genesim (probably from Jewish
sources), considers Rehoboth-Ir as refeiTing to
Nineveh, and as meaning the " streets of the city."
The reading of the Targums of Jonathan, Jerusalem,
and liiibbi Joseph, on Gen. and 1 Chron., viz.,
Platiah, Platiutha, are probably only transcrip-
tions of the Greek word irKariiai, which, as found
in the well known ancient city I'iataea, is the exact

": In his Travels Van de Velde inclines to place it, or at
any rate one of Isaac's wells, at Bir IseJc, about six miles
S.W. of lieit Jibrin (Syr. and Pal. ii. 146).

a The Arabic translation of this version (Kuehnen)
adheres to the Hebrew text, having Rahabeh el-Medineh.

3 U

102G BEHOBOTH BY THE RIVER

equivalent of Kehobotli. Kaplan, the Jewish geo-
grapher {Erels Kedumim\ identities Rahabeh-mabk
witlj Kehoboth-bv-the-river, in whicli he is possibly
correct, but .onsiaers it as distinct from Kelioboth-
Ir, which lie b.'lieves to have disappeared. [G.]

RE'HOBOTH BY TIIE RIVER (n'mnn
"inari: *Po&);8u.'0— in Chr. '?w&a>e—h t^P^ ^°-
TaijL6v \ Alex. 'Voa^wd in each : dojiuvio liohoboth ;
Rohvboth qiiuejuxt'i amncm sita est). The city ot a
certain Saul or Shaul, one of the early kings of the
Kdoniites ((ien. x.vxvi. 37 ; 1 Chr. i. 48). The
affix, " the river," tixes the situation of Rehoboth
as on the Kuphrates, emphatically "the river
to the inhabitants of Western Asia. [River.]
The name still remains attached to two spots on
the Euphrates ; the one. simj.ly Rohibch, on the
right bank, ei^'ht miles below the junction of the
Khabiii; and about three miles west of the river
(Chesnev, Enphr., i. 119, ii. 610, and map iv.),
the other four or five miles further down on the
left kmk. The latter is said to be called Rahabeh-
maW:, i. e. " royal " (Kalisch, Kaplan),* and is on
this ground identified by the Jewish commentators
witlAhe 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 Niinrod, is not yet known.

there is no reason to suppose that the limits of
Kdom ever extended to the Euphrates, and there-
fore the occttrreiice of the name in the lists of
kings of Edom, would seem to be a trace of an
Assyrian incursion of the same nature as that of
Chedorlaomer and Amraphel. [0.]

RE'HUM (Q-inT : 'Veovjx ; Alex. 'lepeou/^ :
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
1 Esd. V. 8 RoiMUS.

2. {Reum.) " Rehum the chancellor," with
Shimshai the scribe and otheis, wrote to Aiiaxerxes
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 lieutertant-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 allied " the governor on
this side the river." The Chaldee title, OyD-^yil,

b^el-te'em, lit. " lord of decree," is left untranslated
in the LXX. BaXrayU, and the Vulgate Beeltcem ;
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 I Esd. ii. 25, 6
ypd<p(ai' TO TTpoffTriirrovTa, and by Josephus {A)it.
xi. 2, §1 ), 6 irdvTa to irpaTrSixeva ypd(paiv. The
former of these seems to be a gloss, lor the Chaldee
title is also represented by BeeArefl/UOS.

3. ['Paovfi: Nehum.) A Levite of the family of
fiani, who assisted in rebuilding the walls of Jeru-
salem (Nell. iii. 17).

4. {"Pfovfi.) One of the chief of the people, who
signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 25).

REMALIAH

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

EE'I(''yi: 'Priffei:^ Rei). A person mentioned
(in 1 K. i. 8 only) as having, in company with
Zadok, Benaiah, Nathan, Shimei, and the men of
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. Hcbr.
ad ioc.) states that he is the same with " Hiram
the Zairite," i. 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 sgjpa-
rently never for i)afcf/r (Gesen. T/ies. 976, 7). [G.]

REINS, i. e. kidneys, from the Latin renes.
1. The word is used to translate the Hebrew niv3,
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
□'^*?n, elsewhere translated " loins." [G.]

REK'EM (Di;5T : 'PokoV, 'Vo^Sk ; Alex. '7ok6ix :
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. {"PeKofj.; Alex. "PokS/j..) One of the four
sons of Hebion, 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 (Dpi : perhaps Ka<pav Koi NuKau ;
Alex. 'Pe/csju : Recem). One of the towns of the
allotment of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 27). It occurs
between ilozAii {hcnn-Motsa) and Irpekl. No
one, not even Schwarz, has attempted to identity-
it with any existing site. But may there not be
a trace of the name in Ain luirini, the well-known
spring west of Jerusalem ? It is within a very
short distance of Motsah, provided Kidonieh be
Motsah, as the writer has already suggested. [G.]

REMALI'AH (•in^^'pD"): -PoyieXlas in Kings
and Isaiah, "PofxeXia in Chr. : Eomelia). The father
of I'ekah, captain of Pekahiah king of Israel, who
slew his m.ujter and usurped his throne (2 K. xv.
25-37, xvi. 1, 5 ; 2 Chr. xxviii. 6 ; Is. vn. 1-9,
viii. 6).

" Tlic existence of the second rests but on slender
rounilatioii. It U shown in the map In Layard's Nineveh
and Hiih'jUm, and is mcnlioned by the two Jewish

authorities named above : but it docs not appear iu the
work of Col. Chesney.
•> Reading ^; for y.

REHIETH

REM'ETH (nO"] : 'Pefifids ; Alex. 'Pa/x^o0 :
RaiaetK). One of the towns of Issachar (Josh. six.
21), occurring in the list next to En-gannim, the
modem Jenvi. It is pi'obably (though not cei-
tainly) a distinct place from the Rajioth of 1 Chr.
vi. 73. A place bearing the name of Rameh is
found on the west of the tracif from Samaria to
Jenin, about 6 miles N. of the former and 9 S.W.
of the latter (Porter, Handh. 348 « ; 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 ajipears 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-
MATHAIJI-ZOPHIM, see that article (p. 999). [G.]

EEM'MON \{'\iy), i- e. Rimmon : 'Epe/j-ixdy : »
Alex. ''Pefxfiaid : Remrnon). 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 (-INhrsn |""IJ3"1, i. e.
Rimmon ham-methoar : 'Peix/xufad yiadapao^a, ;
Alex. "PefjLfjiwvafi fj.a6apifj. : Remmon, Amthar). A
place which formed one of the landmarks of the
eastern boundary of the territory of Zebulun (Josh.
xix. 13 only). It occurs between Eth-Katsin and
Neah. Methoar does not really form a part of the
name; but is the Pual of "IXR, to stietch, and
should be translated accordingly (as in the maigin
of the A. V.) — " R. which reaches to Neah." This
is the judgment of Gesenius, Thes. 1292a, Rodiger,
lb. 1491a; Fiirst, Handwb. ii. 512a, and Bunsen,
as well as of the ancient Jewish commentator
Hashi, who quotes as his authority the Targum
of Jonathan, the text of which has however been
subsequently altered, since in its present state it
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 further
erroneously tbllowed the Vulgate in giving the first
part of the name as Remmon instead of Rimmon.

This Rimmon does not appear to have been known
to Eusebius and Jerome, but it is mentioned by the
early traveller Parchi , who says that it is cal led Ruma-
neh, and stands an hour south of Sepphoris (Zunz's
Benjamin, ii. 433). If for south we read north, this
is in close agreement with tlie sbitements of Dr. Robin-
son (B. R. iii. 110), and Mr. Van de Velde {Map ;
Memoir, 344), who place Rummdneh on the S.
border of the Plain of Buttaiif, 3 miles N.N.E. of
Sejfnrieh. It is difficult, however, to see hovir this
can have been on the eastern boundary of Zebulun.
Rimmon is not improbably identical with tlie
Levitical city, which in Josh. xxi. 35 appears in
the form of Dimnah, and agani, m the parallel li^ts
of Chronicles (1 Chr. vi. 77) as Rimmono (A. V.
Rimmon, p. 10436). [G.]

REMPHAN

1027

REM'PHAN {"Pf/xcpdu, 'Pefpdv : Rempham,

Acts vii. 43) : and CHIUN (;V3 : 'Paicfxiv,

"Pofj.<pa, Com^jl. Am. v. 26) have been supposed to
be names of an idol worshipped by the Israelites in
the wilderness, but seem to be the names of two
idols. The second occurs in Amos, in the Heb. ;
the first, in a quotation of that passage in St. Ste-
jjhen's address, in the Acts : the LXX. of Amos has,
however, the same name as in the Acts, though not
written in exactly the same manner. Mach diffi-
culty has been occasioned by this corresponding
occurrence of two names so wholly different in
sound. The most reasonable opinion seemed to
he that Chiun was a Hebrew or Semitic name,
and Remphan an Egyptian equivalent substituted
by the LXX. The fbrnier, rendered Saturn in
the Syr., was compaied with the Arab, and Pers.

"the j)lauet Saturn," and, itec'ording to

'"^ The LXX. here combine the Ain and Rimmou of the
A. V. into one name, and make up the four cities of this
group ty inserting a &aK\a, of which there is no trace in

Kircher, the latter was found in Coptic with the
same signification ; but perhaps he had no authority
for this excepting the supposed meaning of the
Hebrew Chiun. Egyptology has, however, shown
that this is not the true explanation. Among the
foreign 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 botli, 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 Menriphis,
Ptah, the Egyptian Hephaestus. The luxme Ptali
is from a Semitic root, for it signifies "open," and
in Heb. we find the root fin 2, 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 recoi'ds. 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 TlaTaiKOL or TlaraiKoi,
whose images, according to Herodotus, were the
figure-hea<ls 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 fii'st and second of these have
foreign forms ; the third and fourth have Egyptian
forms : there would therefore seem to be au especially
foreign character about the former two.

the Hebrew, but which is possibly the Tochen of 1 Chr.
Iv. 32— in the LXX. of that passage, ®OKKd.

3 U 2

1028

KEMPHAN

KENI^'U, pronounced UEllPU (?),* is rppresented
as an Asiatic, with the lull beard and apparently
the general type of" tiice i;iven on the nionunicnts
to most nations east ot' Kgypt, and to tlic KEBU
or Libyans. This type is evidently that of the
Shemites. His hair is I)ound with a fillet, which is
ornamented in front with the head of an antelope.

KEN is repyosented prfectly naked, holding in botJi
hands corn, and standing upon a lion. In the List
paiticular the figure of a goddess at Maltheiyyeh in
As.syria may bo compared (Layaid, Nineveh, ii. 212).
From this occuiTence of a similar represeiit;ition,
from her being naked and carrying corn, and from
her being worshipped with KHEM, we may sui>
pose that KEN corresponded to the Syrian goddess,
at least when the latter had the character of Venus.
She is also called KE'l'ESH, which is the name in
hieroglyphics of the great Hittite town on the
Oroutes. _ This in the present case is probably a
title, riKnp : it can scarcely be the name of a town
where she was worshijiped, 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 RiiNPU and KEN.

ASTAIvTA is of course the Ashtoreth of Canaan.
On a fciblet in the I'Mitish JIusenm the principal
sulijcct is a group representing KEN, having KHEM
on one side and KENPU on the other: beneath is
an adoration of ANATA. On the half of another
tablet KEN and KH1-]M occur, and a dedication to
KENPtJaud KETESH.

We have no clue to the exact time of tlie intro-
duction of these divinities into Egypt, nor, except
in one case, to any particular places of their wor-
ship. Their names occur as e:vrly as the period of
the xviiith and xixth dymisties, and it is therefore
not improbable that they were introduced by the
Shepherds. ASTAHTA is mentioned in a tablet
of Amenoph U., 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-
sen-able that the Shepherds worshipped SUTEKH,
conesjwnding to SE'l'H, and also called BAR, that
is, P.:ud, and that, under king APEPEE, he was the
sole god of the foreigners. SUTElvH was probablv
a foreign god, and w;u5 certainly identified witii
Biuil. The idea that the Shepherds introduced the
foi-eign gods is therefore partly confirmed. As to
RENPU and KEN we c;m only otler a conjecture.
They occur together, and KEN is a form of the
Syrian goddess, and also beais some relation to the
Egyptian god of productiveness, KHEM. Their
simihuity to B;uil and Ashtoreth seems strong, and
pei-hajjs it is not unreasonable to suppose that" they
were the divinities of some tribe from the east,
not of Plioenicians or Canaanites, settled in Euypt
during the Shepherd-])eriod. The naked gwMess
KEN would suggest such worship as that of the
Babylonian Mylitta, but the thoroughly Shemite
ajpix-arance of RENPU is rather in favour of an

• Jn illualration of this probable pronunciation, we
may cite the (weurrence in hieronlyphics of HENl'A or
ICAXP, "youtli. younu, to nn.w ;" «M,i, in (;„ptic, of

tlip Hupposed cognate pZ^JULTlI? pOJULITI, S.

j)Al.nC, •• u .v'iii;" »> A1I:nmii i;. i\i, ii,|.iiis,

x*-(:xR.fi.e, JULejutqi, juiertfie,

A«.citqi, s juLGJULqc, jULitfie, m.>-

EEMPHAN

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 tlie early
mythology is extremely obscure.

The Israelites in Egypt, after Joseph's rule, a]i-
pear to have fallen into a general, liut doubtless not
universal, practice of idolatiy. Tliis is only twice
distinctly stated and once alluded to (Josh. xxiv.
14 ; Ezek. xx. 7, 8, sxiii. 3), but the indications
are perfectly clear. The mention of CHI UN or
KEMPHAN as worshijjped in the desert shows that
this idolatry was, in part at least, that of foreigners,
and no doubt of those settled in Lower Egvpt. The
golden calf, at fiist 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 Apocryplia 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
Caniirus 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 Remplian occur. The Slaso-
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 reads:
Kal aveXd^ere rrjv ffK7)v))v rov MoKhx, Kol rh
aarpou rod Oeov v/xaiv 'Paitpav, tovs tvttovs
avrSiv oils iiroirjffaTf iavro^s. The Vulg. agrees
with the Masoretic text in the order of the clauses,
though omitting Chiun or Remphan. " Et portastis
tabeinaculum 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
di/eAa^Sere rr/r (T/crji/r/i' rod MoXhx, Kai rh aarpov
rod 6eoD vnav 'V€fjL(pav, tovs tvttovs ovs iiroii)-
auTe trpocTKVvelv avrols). A slight change in the
Hebrew would enable us to read Moloch (Malcam
or Milcom) instead of " your king." Beyond this
it is extremely difficult to explain the differences.
The substitution of Remphan for Cliiun 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.,

D370 niDD nx would correspond to 1313 flX
IT'S D3\n7X , 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 oiiginal, we
perceive that in the former D3^?D^V JV3 corre-
sponds in position to D3''n'?X 3313, and it d.ies
not seem an unwarrantable conjecture that ]V'2
having been by mistake written in the place of
3313 by some copyist, D3''D^V was also trans-

EEMPHAN

posed. It appears to be more reason.able to read
" images which ye made," than " gods which ye
made," as the former word occurs. Supposing these
emendations to be probable, we may now examine
the meaning of the passage.

The tent or tabernacle of Moloch is supposed by
Gesenius to have been an actual tent, and lie com-
pares the (TKrjv^ Upd of the Carthaginians (Diod.
Sic. XX. 65 ; Lex. s. v. H-IBD). But there is
some difficulty in the idea that the Israelites carried
about so large an object for the purpose of idolatry,
and it seems more likely that it was a small model
of a larger tent or shiine. The reading Moloch
appears preferable to " your king ;" but the men-
tion of the idol of the Ammonites as worshipped in
the desert stands quite alone. It is perhaps worthy
of note that there is reason for supposing th.\t
Moloch was a name of the planet Saturn, and that
this planet was evidently supposed by the ancient
translators to be intended by Chiun and Kemphan.
The correspondence of Remphan or Raiphan to
Chiun is extremely remarkable, and can, we think,
only be accounted for by the supposition that the
LXX. translator or translators of the prophet had
Egyptian knowledge, and being thus acquainted with
the ancient joint worship of Ken and Ronpu, 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 passage
is to be read so as to connect these words, would
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 like
Chiun, is not sufficiently strong to enable us to lay
any stress upon the agreeinent. In hieroglyphics
the sign for a star is one of the two composing
the word SEB, " to adore," and is undoulDtedly
tliere used in a symbolical as well as a phonetic
sense, indicating that the ancient Egyptian religion
was partly derived from a sj'stem of star-worship ;
and there are representations on the monuments of
mythical creatures or men adoring stars {Ancient
£iji/ptians, 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 coimected
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
])ractised by the Israelites. It is very remarkable
that the only false gods mentioned as worshipped
by them in the desert should be probably Moloch,
;md Chiun, and Remphan, of which the latter two
wei-e foreign divinities worshipped in Egypt. From
this we may reasonably infer, that while the Israelites

REPHAIM, THE VALLEY OF 1029

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.]

REPH'AEL ("^NIQI : 'Pa(pa^K: Raphael). Son

of Shemaiah, the firstborn of Obed-edom, and one
of the gate-keepers of the tabernacle, " able men for
strength for the service" (I Chr. xxvi. 7).

RE'PHAH (HQI : '?a<pi] : Rapha). A son of
Ephraim, and ancestor of Joshua the son of Nun
(1 Chr. vii. 25).

REPHArAH(iTS"1: 'PacpdX; A\ex.'Pa(paia:
Raphn'ia). 1. The sons of Kephaiah appear among
the descendants of Zerubbabel in 1 Chr. iii. '21.
In the Peshito-Syriac he is made the son of Jesaiah.

2. ('Pa<f)ata). 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 Chr.
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 is
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.

EEPH'AIM. [Giants, vol. i. 6876.]
EEPH'AIM, THE VALLEY OF (pDJ?
D^XS"! : v KOiXas tSiv Tiravwv, and tu>v Tl-
yavTuv ; k. 'Pa(pa€'Lfi; in Isaiah (pdpay^ (TTcped),
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" (77) 'Pacpaeiv and "E/xeK 'Pa^aelv).
A spot which was the scene of some of David's
most remarkable adventures. He twice encoun-
tered the Philistines there, and inflicted a destruc-
tion on them and on their idols so signal that it
gave the place a new name, and impressed itself on
the popular mind of Israel with such distinctness
that the Prophet Isaiah could employ it, centuries
after, as a symbol of a tremendous impending judg-
ment of God — nothing less than the desolation and
destruction of the whole earth (Is. xxviii. 21, 22).
[Perazim, mount.]

It was probably during the former of these two
contests that the incident of the water of Beth-
lehem (2 Sam. xxiii. 13, &c.) occurred. The
" hold " * (ver. 14) in which David found himself,
seems (though it is not clear) to have been the
cave of Adullam, the scene of the commencement
of his freebooting life ; but, wherever situated, we
need not doubt that it was the same fastness as
that mentioned in 2 Sam. v. 17, since, in both
cases, the same word (m-IVSH, with the def.
article), and that not a usual one, is employed.
The story shows very' clearly the predatory nature
of these incursions of the Philistines. It was in
" harvest time " (ver. 13). They had come to
cany off the ripe crops, for which the valley was
proverbial (Is. xvii. 5), just as at Pas-dammim
(1 Chr. xi. 13) we find them in the parcel of

" There is no warrant for " doicn to the hold" in A. V.
Had it been /]}, "down" might have been added with
safety.

1030 KET'HAIM. THE VALLEY OF
cjiound full of barley, at Lehi in the field of len-
Tiles (-Z Sam. xxiii. 11 ), or at Keilah in the thresh-
intC-flooi-s (I Sam. xxiii. 1). Their animals'* were
st-attered amon? the ripe com receiving the-r load of
jiiuiider. The '• gariison," or the officer' in charge
of the expedition, was on the watch in the village of
Bethlehem.

This narrative seems to imply that the valley
of Wephaim was near Bethlehem ; but unfortu-
nately neither this nor the notice in Josh. xv. 8
and .\viii. IG, in connexion with the boundary line
between .ludah and Benjamin, gives any clue to
its situation, still less docs its connexion with tiie
grove.-, ot' mulherrv 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 citv of Bethlehem."

Since the latter i)art of the ItJth cent.d the name
has been attached to the upland plain which stretches
south of Jerusalem, and is crossed by the road to
Bethlehi-m — the et Buk'ah of the modern Arabs
(Tobler, JcruMikm, kc, ii. 401). But this,
though appropriate enough as regards its proximity
to Bethlehem, does not answer at all to the meaning
of the Hebrew word Eineh, which ajjpears always
to designate an inclosed valley, never an open up-
land j)lain like that in question,' the level of which
is as high, or nearly as high, as that of Mount Zion
itself. [Vallkv.J Kusebius {Onomaxticon, "Pa-
(padv and 'T.fj.(Kpa<pa.eliu.) calls it the valley of the
Philistines (/foiAay a.\\o(pv\aiv), and places it "on
the north of Jerusalem," in the tribe of Benjamin.

A position N. W. of the city is adopted by
Fiirst {Hmidwh. ii. 3836), apparently on the
ground of the terms of Josh. xv. 8 and xviii. 16,
which cei-tainly do leave it doubtful whether the
valley is on the north of the boundaiy or the
boundary on the north of the valley ; and Tobler,
in his last investigations (3tte Wanderung, 202),
conclusively adopts the Wadij iJer Jasin ( W.
Makltrior, in Van de Velde's map), one of the side
valleys of the great Wadii Beit Hanina, as the
vallev of Rephaim. This position is open to the
obvious objection of too great distance fiom both
liethleliem and the cave of Adullam (according to
anv position assignable to the latter) to meet the
requirements u( •! Sam. xxiii. l:i.

The valley appears to derive its name from the
ancient nation ol the Kephaim. It mav be a trace
of an early settlement of theirs, possibly after they
were driven from their original seats east of the
.Ionian by Cliedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 5), and before
they again migrated northward to the more secure
wo«Kled districts in which we tind them at the date
of the partition of the couutiy among the tribes
'Josh. xvii. 1.5; \. V. "giants"). In this case it
in a parallel to the " mount of the Amalekites" in
the centre of I'alestine, find to the towns bearing
the name of the Zemaraim, the Avim, the Ophnit«s,
&C., wliich occur so frequently in Benjamin, [vol.
i. p. 188 note.] [G.]

h This U tlie renderinK in the ancient and tnistworthy
Syrinc vontlon of the rare word n*n (2 Sam. xxiii.
i;i), rendered In our version " troop."

'■ SrltVt. l'l)nnieanin(5lMUtioTtuin (see vol.il. 353 note).

■• Ac(-orilln« to Toliler {Titpoffraphie, kc., il. 404), Coto-
wyciw lit til'- first who records tliU identitirallon.

• On tlie oilier hand it Ih somewhat sinxiilar that the

REPHIDIM
KEPH'IDTM (DnSt: 'Pa(f.iSlv). Ex. xvii. 1,
8 • xix. 2. The name n)eaus " rests " or " stays ;"
the place lies in the march of the Israelites from
Egypt to Sinai. The " wilderness of Sin " was
succeeded by Kephidim according to these passages,
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 Kephidim. [Alcsh ; Dophkaii.] Lepsius'
view is that Moavt 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 Thebes
to Sinai, 184.), pp. 21, 37). This would account
tor the expectation of finding water here, which,
however, from some unexplained cause tailed. In
Ex. xvii. G, " the rock in Horeb" is named as the
source of t.he water miraculously supplied. On the
other hand, the language used Ex. xix. 1, 2, seems
precise, as regards the point that the journey from
Kephidim to Sinai was a distinct stage. The time
from the wilderness of Sin, reached on the fifteenth
dav of the second month of the E.xodus (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 Kephidim, and their cor-
responding stages of journey, which would allow two
days' repose to every day's march, as there are four
marches, and 4x2-1-4=: 12, leaving two daj's over
from the fourteen. The first gi-and object being
the arrival at Sinai, the intervening .distani« 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 Kobinson
taken to mean an extended range or region, some
part of which was near to Kephidim, which he
places at Wadij esh Sheikh,'^ running from N.E. to
S.W., on the W. side of Gebel Fureia, opposite the
northern face of the modern Horeb. [Sinai.] It
joins the Wady Feiran. The exact spot of Robin-
son's Kephidim is a defile in the esh Sheikh visiteil
and deso'ibed by Burckhardt {Syria, &c., 488) as
at about five hours' distance fiom where it issues
from the plain A> Uaheh, narrowing between abrupt
cliffs of blackened granite to about 40 feet in width.
Here is also the ti aditional " Seat of Moses " (Robin-
sou, i. 121). The opinion of Stanley {S. and P.
40-42), on the contrary, with Ritter i xiv. 740, 741),
places Kephidim 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
narrows 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

the siRnificatlon of Jimek. There is no connexion be-
tween liuk'ah and Baca ; they are essentially distinct.

• On this Lepsius remarljs that Robinson would have
certainly recognised the true position ol Rephidim (i. k.
at iiud.v Feiran), had he not passed by Wady Feiran
with its brook, garden, and ruins — the most interesting
spot in the ])eiiinsula— in order to see SarhUt el Chadem
{ibid. p. 22). And Stanley admits the objection of bringing

miMcrn name for this upland plain, mkaali, should be the Israellies through the most striking scenery in the de-
the Niine wlih Hint of Hie ({real eiielowd valli y of I/dia- sert, that of Feiran, without any event ot importance to
lion, whhh dilliTH from it a.s widely an il cati ditl'er from mark it.

RESEN

whole peninsula (Biirckhardt, Arab. 602 ; see also
Robinson, i. 117, 1 18). Its fertility and richness ac-
count, as Stanley thinks, for the Anialekites' 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
said adequately to describe that on which tlie church
of Paran stood, aflbrds an argument in favour of the
Feiran identity. [H. H.]

KES'EN (|D") : AacriyL, Aaff^ : Besen) 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
" between Nineveli and Calah." Jlany writers have
been inclined to identify it with the Rhesina or
Rhesaena of the Byzantine authors (Amm. Marc,
xxiii. 5 ; Procop. Bell. Pers. ii. 19 ; Steph. Byz.
siih voce 'Pecriva), and of Ptolemy ( Geograph. v.
18), which wiis 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
(wliich similarity is perhaps fallacious, since the
LXX. evidently read jDT for {Dl), while it is a
fatal objection to the theory that Resaena or Resina
was not in Assyi'ia at all, but in Westei-n 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 N.imrud. 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
whicji 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.

REUBEN

1031

Instances of such transfers of name are not unfre-
quent.

The later Jews appear to have identified Resen
with the Kileh-Shergliat ruins. At least the Tar-
gums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem explain Resen
by Tel-Assar ("10771 or "IDNTTl), " the mound of
Asshur." [G. R.]

EESH'EPH ( Wn : 2apc(^ ; Alex. 'Pao-e> :

Resi'ph). A son of Ephraim and brother of Rephah
(1 Chr. vii. 25).

RE'U (-ly"! : 'Pa7a5 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 Rolia, the Arabic name tor Edessa, an
assertion which, borrowed from Knobel, is uttei'ly
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.

EEU'BEN (jn-lJ^I: 'Vov^riv and 'Vovfi'hv ]

Joseph. ''PovfirtKos : Pesh. Syr. Ruhil, and so also
in Arab. vers, of Joshua: Ruben), Jacob's first-
born child (Gen. xxix. 32), the son of Leah, appa-
rently not born 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 hen, 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 ^i^yS ''•1t<"l, rau 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" — eAeoc tov
@iov, as if fi-om 7K3 ^l^l (Fiirst, Handwh. ii.

344a)." The notices of the patriarch Reuben in the
Book of Genesis and the early Jewish tiaditional
literature are unusually frequent, and on the whole
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 pai-nful
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 whicli
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
Pseudojonatlmn), 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.

» Eedslob {Die AUtestamentl. Namen, S6) maintains
that Reubel is the original form of the name, which was
corrupted into Ileuben, as Bethel into Beitln, 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
Nebo had a famous sanctuary in the very territory of

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 Eeute? would, on
this theory, find a parallel in the MeribbaoJ and EshfcoaJ
of Saul's family, who became MephitosAeift and Ish-
ttosheth.

1032

REUBEN

panillel, in some of its circumstances, to the intrigue
of Diivid with Batlislieba. Some severe temptation
there must surely have been to impel Keuben to
an act which, regiu-ded in its social rather than in
its moral aspect, would be pcculiai-ly abhoivent to
a p;»triarchal society, and which is specially and
repeatedly reprobated in the law of Moses. The
Kiibbinical vereion of the occun-ence (as given in
Targ. I'seudojon.) is very characteristic, and well
illustrates the ditJi^rence between the spirit of early
and of late Jewish history. " Keuben went and
disordereil the couch of Bilhah, his father's concu-
bine, which w;is 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-
please>l him, and he Kud '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 an.\'iety 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
aixlent, impetuous, unbalancotl, but not ungenerous
nature ; not crafty and cruel, as were Sinieon and
Levi, but rather, to use the metaphor of the dying
patriarch, boiling'' 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-
drawn.

At the time of the migration into Egypt "^
Reuben's sons were four (Gen. xlvi. 9 ; 1 Chr. v. 3).
From them sprang tlie chief flmiilies of the tribe
(Num. .\.\-vi. 5-11). One of these families — that of
Pallu — became notoiious 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, sxvi.
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 sei-vice^ In point
of numeriGil strength, Reuben was then sixth on
the list. Gad, with 45,650 men, being next below.
On the borders of Cana;in, after the plague which
))unished the idolatry of Baalpeor, the numbers
had fallen slightly, and were 43,730 ; Gad was
4o,50o ; and the position of the two in the list is
lower than before, Ephraim and Simeon being the
only two smaller tribes (Num. x.xvi. 7, &c.).

During the journey through the wilderness the
]iosition of Reuben w;i8 on the south side of the
Tabernacle. The " camp " ,vhich went under his
name was fonned of his own tribe, that of Simeon "*
(Leah's second son), and Gad (son of Zilpah, Leah's
slave). The standard of the ciunp w;is a deer<^
with the inscription, "Hear, oh Israel! the Lord
thy Go<l is om; Lord ! " and its place in the
march was second {'lanjum I'seudojon. Num. ii.
lU-16).

The Reubonites, like their relatives and neit^h-
l>oui-s on the journey, the Gadites, had maintained

•■ Such uppears to be a more accurate rciidciliig of the
word whicli In the A. V. is rendered " unstable " (Gesen.
I'tnt. Sam. p. 33).

■^ Aco>r<llii|; tc the ancient tradition preserved by De-
iiii'trliis (in Kiiscb. J'racp. JCv. \x. 21), Reuben was45 years
old at Uii- time of the migration.

"> Iti'ubin and Simeon are named together by Jacob in
ticn. xlvili. &; and there is perliai)s a trace of the con-

REUBEN

through the march to Canaan, the ancient calling
of their forefathers. The patriarchs were " feeding
their flocks " at Shechem when Joseph was sold
into Egvpt. 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. l),'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 JMishor,"
with reference possibly to its evenness (Stanley,
S. ^ 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 beeu 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 Israel
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 : ' —

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

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

noxion in the Interchange of the names in J*ud. viii. 1
(Vulg.) and ix. 2.

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

' A few versions have been bold enough to render the
Hebrew as it stands. Thus the Vulgate, Luther, De Wettc,
and Bunsen.

REUBEN

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 "ISpD is never

;mployed elsewhere for a large number, but always
I'or a small one {e.g. 1 Chr. xvi. 19 ; Job svi. 22;
Is. X. 19; Ez. xii. 16).

2. That of our own Auth. Version: —

■' And let not his men be few."
Here the negative of the first line is pi-esuroed 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.
908 a, and Pent. Sam. p. 44).

3. A third and very ingenious interpretation is
that adopted by the Veneto-Greek Version, and also
by Jlichaelis {Bibel fiir Ungelehrten, Text), which
assumes that the vowel-points of the word ITlD,
" his men," are altered to ITltD, " his dead " —

" And let his dead be few '' —

as if in allusion to some recent mortalitv in the
tribe, such as that in Simeon after the plague of
Baal-Peor.

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.*' 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 welfere through all the
risks 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, gi'adually grew up more sub-
stantially between the Eastern and Western tribes.
The first act of the former after the completion of
the conquest, and after they had taken part in the
solemn ceremonial in the Valley between Ebal and
Cerizim, 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-
dary — to testify to after ages that though separated
by the rushing river from their brethren and the
country in which Jeiiovah had fixed the place
where He would be worshipped, they had still a
right to return to it for His worship — was erected

EEUBEN

1033

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

^ In the Revised Translation of the Holy Scriptures by
the Kev. C. Wellbeloved 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, witli tliat 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 word
which involves the idea of sacrifice — i.e. of slauijJi^
fer (see Gesenius, T/tes. 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." *
— 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 {Ebeii), 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 Ren-
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*' of the Slishor; the distant
distress of his brethren could not move Reuben, he
lingered among his sheepfolds and preferred the
shepherd's pipe * 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 countiy 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-
uasseh " (1 Chr. xii. 37). The very towns of his
inheritance — Heshbon, Aroer, Kirjathaim, Dibon,
Baal-meon, Sibmah, Jazer, — are familiar to us as
]\Ioabite, and not as Israelite towns. The city-life
so characteristic of Moabite ci\'ilisation 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 cf
cattle, asses, camels ; dwelling in their tents, as
if to the manner bom (1 Chr. v. 10), giadually
spreading over the vast wilderness which extends

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

i The " altar " is ajctually 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.

'' The word used liere, puleg, seems to refer to artilicial
streams or ditches for irrigation. [Riveb.]

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

1034 KEVELATION OF ST. JOHN

from Jordan to the Kiiplinxtes (v. 9), and every
day receding t'luther and further from any com-
munity of feeling or of interest with the Western
tribes.

Thus remote from tlie central seat of the national
government and of tlio nationid religion, it is not
to be wondered at that Reuben lelinquished 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 tliis
fact, records also as its natural consequence that the
Keuhenites and Gadites, and the half-tribe of Ma-
na.ssdi were c;irried off by Pul and Tiglath-Pileser,
and placed in the distiicts on and about the river
Kkabur in the upper part of Mesopotamia — " in
Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and the river Gozan"
(1 Chr. V. 26). [G.]

REU'EL ("pXiyi: 'PayourjA.: Rahuel, Raguel).
The nam^; of seveial persons mentioned in the Bible.

1. One of the sons of Esau, by his wife Bashe^
math sister of Ishmael. His sons were ibui- —
Nahath, Zerah, Sharamah, and Jlizzah, "dukes"
of Edom (Gen. x.'i.wi. 4, 10, 13, 17 ; 1 Chr. i. 35,
37).

2. One of the names of Moses' father-iu-law
(E.\-. ii. 18); the same which, through adherence
to the LXX. form, is given in another passage of
the A. V. Haguel. Moses' father-in-law was a
Midiauite, but the Midianites are in a well-known
passage (Gen. xxxvii. 28) called also Ishmaelites,
and if tliis may be taken strictly, it is not impossible
that the name of Reuel may be a token of his con-
nexion with the Lshmaelite 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
Dkcel, which is retained in this instance also by
the Vulgate {Duel).

4. A Beiijamite 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
(IChr. ix. 8). [G.]

RE'UIMAH (nDIK"! : 'PeV« ; Alex- 'P«^pa =
Roma). The concubine of Xahor, Abraham's brother
(Gen. xxii. 24).

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN ('Atto/c^-
A(/<|'(s '\(M>(ivvov : Apocalypsis Beati Joannis Apo-
BtoUy. The tbllowing subjects in connexion with
this book seem to have the chief claim for a place
in this article : —

A. Canonical Authority and Authorship.
15. TiMK and Place of Writing. '

C. Language.

D. Contents and Structure.

E. History of Interpretation.

A. Canonical Authority and Authorship.
— The question as to the canoniciil authority of the
Itevclatioti resolve's itself into a question of author-
ship. If it am be proved that a book, claiming so
distinctly as this does the authority of divme in-
spiration, w;is actually written bv St. John, then
no doubt will be entertained ;is to its title to a place
in the Canon of Scripture.

Wjus, then, St. .lohn the Apostle and Evangelist
the writer of the Revelation? This question was
first mooted by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius,
H. E. vii. 25). 'J'he doubt which he modestly

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

sugo-ested has been confidently proclaimed in mo-
dern times by Luther ( Vorrede auf die Ojfenbarung ,
1522 and 1534), and widely ditiused through his
influence. Liicke {Einleitung, 802), the most
learned and diligent of modern critics of the Reve-
lation, agrees with a majority of the eminent scho-
lars of Germany in denying that St. John was the
author.

But the general belief of the mass of Christians
in all ages lias 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
and 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 peiiod, 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 also
described as (6) a servant of Christ, (c) one who had
borne testimon)'' 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 ((i) 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-sufterer
with those whom he addresses, and (/) the autho-
rised channel of the most direct and innwrtant
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 (;/) 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 tact 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 inissionary
labours or some time of sacred retirement in Pat-
mos. Equally unavailing against this conclusion is
the objection brought by Ewald, Credner, ;md 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. .\ii. 13) —
a divine jiromise of salvation to himself personally.
Rather those passages ma_y 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 jirepared to give up the
veracity and divine origin of the whole book, and
to ti-eat the writer's account of himself as a mere

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

fiction of a poet trying to cover his own insignifi-
cance with au 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
is stam])ed 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 I'evelation and
St. John, and to recognise not merely the same
Spirit as the source of this and other books of Holy
Scriptuie, but also the same peculiarly-formed
human instrument employed both in producing
this book and the fourth Gospel, and in speaking
the charactej'istic 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
( Vermischte Schriffen, ii. 173-231). After inves-
tigating the peculiar features of the Apostle's cha-
racter and position, and (in reply to Lucke) the
personal traits shown by the writer of the K'evela-
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 lor 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 -veiy
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 Chiist, in a
revelation which was made to him, prophesied that
the believers in oiir Christ shall live a thousand
y<'ars in Jerusalem" (Tryph. §81, p. 179, ed. Ben.).
(6) The author of the Muratorian P'ragment, circ.
170 A.D., speaks of St. John as the writer of the
Apocalypse, and describes him as a predecessor of
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 Pvevelation of John. Eusebius (//. 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 iairly presumed, notwithstanding the
doubts of Klenker and Liicke (p. 514), that liuse-
bius found no doubt as to St. John's authorship in
the book of this ancient Asiatic bishop. (J) 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, appai-ently never ha\nng 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 the
Revelation as the same who was leaning on Jesus'
bosom at suppei-, and asked Him who should beti'ay
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, where
he vindicates the true reading (666) of the number

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 1035

of the Beast, he cites in support of it not only the
old correct copies of the book, but also the oral
testimony of the very per.sons who themselves had
seen St. John face to face. It is obvious that
Ii'enaeus' reference for information on such a point
to those contemporaries of St. John implies his
umioubting 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
gi-oundless because it was entertained before the
learned fathers of Alexandria had set the example
of 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
jlontanists 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).
(A) Tertullian (a.d. 207), in at least one place, quotes
by name " the Apostle John in the Apocalypse "
[Adv. Marcion. iii. 14). (i) 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 Aposfle. He quotes it as
the work of St. John {De Antickristo, §36, p. 756,
ed. Migne). (7) 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 wiiters, testifying that the
book came from an Apostle, believed that it was a
part of Holy Scripture. But many whose extant
vvoiks cannot be quoted for testimony to the au-
thorship of the book refer to it as possessing
canonical authority. Thus (a) Papias, who is de-
scribed by Irenaeus as a hearer of St. John and
friend of Polycarp, 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 inspiiation of the book (Roufh,
Reliq. Sacr. i. 15 ; Cramer's Catena, Oxford, 1840,
p. 176). The value 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) lit 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, ed. 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 I'eceived it as canonical. Although omitted
(perhaps as not adapted for public reading in
church) from the list of canonical books in the

1036 REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

Council of LaoJicea, it was admitted into the list
of the Third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397.

Such is the evidence in favour of St. .lohn's author-
ship and of the canonical autiioritj' of this book. The
Ibllowing 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
(Kpiphauius, Ado. ILier. li.). The Roman pres-
byter Caius (circa 19(5 A.D.), who also wrote
against Jlontanisni, is quoted by Eusebius {H. E.
iii. 28) as ascribing certain Hevelations to Cerin-
thus : but it is doubted (see liouth, Eel. Sacr. ii.
138) whether the lievelatiou of St. John is the
book to which Caius refers. But the testimony
which is considere'd the most imponani of ail hi
ancient times against the Revelation is contained
iu a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria, circa
240 A.D., the most influential and perhaps the
ablest bishop in that age. The ]jassage taken from
a book On the Promises, written in reply to Nepos,
a learned Judaising Chiliast, is quoted by Eusebius
(//. E. vii. 25). The principal points in it are
these: — Dionj'sius 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 Herraammon
(Euseb. //. E. vii. 10) he quotes it as he would
quote Holy Scriptui'e.] He accepts as true what
is stated in the book itself, that it was written by
John, but ho 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
Ephesus, 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 tliink 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 authoi-ship. It is obvious
that he felt keenly the dilfic!ulty arising from the
use made of the contents of this book by certain
unsound Christians under his jurisdiction ; that he
Wiis acquaint<-d with* the doubt as to its canonical
authority which some of his predecessors euter-
tiiined 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. Jolui could write in the style
in which the lievelation is written, he yet knew
of no authority for attributing it, as he desired to
attribute it, to some other of the numerous j)ei-sons
who bore the name of John. A weightier dilllculty
•irises liom the fact that the Revelation is one of

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

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 Ephrem
Syrus. Eusebius is remarkably sparing in his
quotations from the " Revelation of John," and the
uncertainty of his opinion about it is best shown
by his statement in II. 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 shai'cd 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 Jerome 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

B. Time and Place of Writing. — The date
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, lie says (^Adv. Haer. 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 (li. 12), obviously
by mistake, says that John prophesied in the reign
of Claudius. Two or three obscure and later autho-
rities say that John was banished under Kero.

Unsupported by any historical evidence, some
commentators 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,
impossible for him to write his inspired message
with force and vigour, or why his residence in
Ephesus must have removed the Hebraistic pecu-
liarities of his Greek. It is difficult to see in the
passages i. 7, ii. 9, iii. 9, vi. 12, 16, xi. 1, any-
thing which would lead necessarily to the conclu-
sion that Jerusalem w-as in a jirosperous 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
be urged from a modern interpretation of xvii. 10,
if that interpretation could be established. Galba
is alleged to be the sixth king, the one that " is."
In Nero these interpreters see the Beast that was
wounded (xiii. 3), the Beast that was and is not,
the eighth king (xvii. 11). For some time after
Nero's death the Roman populace believed that he
was not dead, but had fled into the East, whence
he would return and regain his throne : and these
intei-preters venture to suggest that the writer of
the Revelation shared ;uid meant to express the

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

absurd popular delusion. Even the able and learned
Keuss {Theol. Chret. i. 44-3), by way of supporting
this interpretation, advances his untenable claim to
the first discoveiy of the name of Nero Caesar in
the number of the beast, 066. The inconsistency
of this interpretation with prophetic analogy, witli
the context of Revelation, and with the fact that
the booii is of divine origin, is pointed out by
Hengstenberg at the end of his Commentary on
ch. xiii., and by Elliott, Hord.a 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 suppoit this conclusion.
The style in which the messages to the seven Churches
are delivered rather suggests the notion that the
book was wi'itten 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
orio-inal is alone a sufficient answer to the sugges-
tion. Liicke (Einlcit. 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 Kevehition from every other book of
the New Testament. And in subsequent sections
(\)-p. 680-747) he urges with great force the dif-
ference between the Revelation on one side and the
fouith 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 the 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 flicfs, and deep pondering
of the doctrinal truths which they involve.

D. Contexts. — The first three verses contain
the title of the book, the description of the writer,
and the blessing pronounced on the readers, which
possibl}', 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 Churclies 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^as on which all our notions of the go-
vernment of the world and the Church are built ;
the Person of Christ, the redemption wrought by

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 1037

Ilim, His second coming to judge mankind, the
painful hopeful discipline of Christians in the midst
of this present world : thoughts which may well be
sujiposed 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. liach 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 contemporaiies concerning the present
events and circumstances. Henceforth he ceases to
address them particularly. His wo)-ds 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.

h. (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 univeisal 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
ensues.

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 sounded. (1) The earth, and
(2) the sea and (3) the springs of water and (4)
the heavenly bodies are successively smitten, (5) a
plague 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, resuriection, 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 one
another. Each of the last two, like the longer

1038 REVEI-ATION OF ST. JOHN

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 (sii.-xxii.) comprises a series of visions which
aie connected by various links. It may be de-
scribed generally as a projdiecy 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 pn-cediiig chapter, but also to
the time in which it was wiitten. It seems hard to
interpret the birth of the child as a prediction, and
not as a reti-ospective allusion.

d. A woman (xii.) clothed with the sun is seen
in heaven, and a great red dragon with seven
crowned heads stiinds 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 l>eads, one wounded, with ten
crowned horns, rising from the water, the represen-
tative of the dragon. All the world wonder at and
worshij) 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 f.xiv.) sees the Lamb with 144,000
standing on Mount Ziou learning the song of praise
of the heavenly host. Three angels tly forth call-
ing men to worship God, proclaiming the fall of
Babylon, denouncing the vvoishippers of the beast.
A blessing is pronouncei-l on tlie 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 jxiur 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., .wiii.) 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 that
great city, sitting upon seven mountains, reigning
over the kings of the earth. Afterwards St. John
sees a vision of tlie destruction of Babylon, portrayed
a» the burning of a great city amid the lamentations
of worldly men and the rejoicing of saints.

Afterwards (xix.) the worshipjiers in heaven are
heard celebrating Babylon's fill and the approaching
marriagc-sup[)er of the Lamb. The Word of God is
.seen going forth to war at the head of the heavenly
aiTiiies : the beast and his false prophet are taken
and cast into the burning lake, and their worship-
pers are shun.

An angel (xx.-xxii. 5) binds the.dragon, i. e. the
devil, for 1000 years, whilst the martyred saints
who had not worshi])ped the beast reign with Christ.
Then the devil is unloosed, gathers a host against
the camp of the saints, but is oveii.ome by fire
from heaven, and is cast into the burning lake with
the beast and false piophet. St. .lohu then witnesses
the process of the linal judgment, and .sees :uid de-

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

scribes the new heaven and the new earth, and the
new 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 waniing
of His speedy coming to judgment, and of the
nearness of the time when these projihecies shall be
fulfilled.

E. Interpretation. — A short account of the
difi'ei-ent 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 experience afforded by its pre-
cepts and by some of its visions, the striking imagery
of others, the tempting field which it supplies for
intellectual exercise, will always atti-act 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
inexhaustible subject are unnumbered, it not innu-
merable. Fanaticism, theological hatred, and vam
curiosity, may have largely influenced their compo-
sition ; but any one who will compare the necessa-
rily inadequate, and sometimes erroneous, e.xposition
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 the
severe persecution they endured, taught them to
Hve in those future evtnts 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
were regarded as the filling-up of the great outline
sketched by Daniel and St. Paul.

The only extant systepoatic interpretations in this
period, are the interpolated Commentary on the
Revelation by the martyr Victorinus, circ. 270 a.d.
{Bibliotheca Patrura Maxima, iii. 414, and Migne's
Patrolofjia Latina, v. 318; the two editions should
be compared), and the disputed Treatise on Antichrist
byHippolytus {Migaa's Patrologia Graeca, x. 726).
But the, prevalent views of that age are to be ga-
thered also from a passage in Justin Martyr ( Trypho,
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, emanc'ipated liom oppression and
persecution, and dominant and pro--perous 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
empire become Christian was regarded no longer as

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

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 sufl'ering 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 treated the Revelation as a his-
tory of the Church from the beginning of the woi-ld
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
tor 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 toTichonius, circ. 390 A.D.,
printed in the works of St. Augustine; Primasius,
of Adrumetum in Africa, a.d. .550, in AIigne"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 Exposiiio 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 Anselni, bishop of Havilberg, a.d. 1145, printed
in D'Achery's Spicilogium, i. 161 ; the Expositio
of Abbot Joachim of Calabria, a.d. 1200, printed
at Venice in 15'27.

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 Wiclifi'e 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
Re\elation. They are generally placed in three
great divisions.

a. The Historical or Continuous expositors, in
whose opinion the Revelation is a progressive his-
toiy of the tbi tunes of the Church from the first
century to the end of time. The chief supporters
of this most intere-ting interpretation are Mede,
Sir I. Newton, Yitringa, Bengel, Woodhouse, FaW,
E. B. Elliott, Wordsworth, Hengstenberg, Ebrard,
and others. The recent commentaiy of Dean Alford
belongs mainly to this school.

h. The Piaeterist expasitors, 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-
nalised in the downfall of Jerusalem and of Rome.
The most eminent expounders of this view are Al-
casar, Grotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calmet, Wet-
stein, Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Lilcke, De
Wette, IHisterdieck, Stuart, Lee, and IMaurice. This
is the favourite interpretation with the critics of
Germany, one of whom goes so far as to state that
the writer of the Revelation promised the fulfilment
of his visions within the space of three years and a
half from the time in which Ke wrote.

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

REZEPH

1039

book, excepting perhaps th« first three chapters,
refers principally, if notexclasively, to events 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 objection.
Against the Futurist it is argued, that it is not
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,^2, 20). Christians, to
whom it was originally addressed, would have derived
no special comfort fi'om it, had its fulfilment been al-
together deferred for so many centuries. The rigidly
literal interpretation of Baljylon, the Jewish tribes,
and other symbols which generally forms a part of
Futurist schemes, presents peculiar difficulties.

Against the Piaeterist expositors it is urged, that
prophecies fulfilled ought to be rendered so perspi-
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 wiong 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 very widely 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 ten-horned
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
aided 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 genei'al 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. Arnolcf in his Sermons On the Interpretation of
Prophecy : that we should bear in 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 *f a prophecy, in each of which the higher
spiritual fulfilment is shadowed forth more or less
distinctly. Mr. Elliott, in his florae Apocalypticae,
iv. 622, argues against this principle ; 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
of the other schemes. [W. T. B.]

EEZ'EPH (Sl^fT: V 'Pa<pf'is, and 'Pa<!>ee:^

^ The Alex. MS. exhibits the same forms of the name
as the Vat. : but by a curious coincidence interchanged,
viz. 'Vaijyeff in 2 Ivings, 'Po<^eis in Isaiah.

1040

EEZIA

Eeseph). One of the places which Sennacherib men-
tions, in his taunting messjige to Hezekiah, as liaving
been destroyed by his predecessor (2 K. xix. 12;
Is. x.\.ivii. 12). 'He couples it with Haran and
other well-known Jlesopotiimian spots. Tlie 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 R<tcca to Iliiins (Gescams, Keil,
Thenius, Michaelis, SnppL); the other, again, is
east of the Euphrates, near Bagdad (Hitzig). The
fonner is mentioned by I'tolemy (v. 1.5) under the
name of 'Pri(Ta.<pa, and appeai-s, in the present im-
perfect state of our Mcsopotamian knowledge, to be
the moi-e feasible of the two. [G.]

KEZ'IA (N"' V"! : 'Vaaid: Besia). AnAsherite,
of the sons of Ulla (1 Chr. vii. 39).

EEZ'IN (rV"'= 'Pafflv, '?aacr(Tiiv: Rasin).
1. A king of Damascus, contemporary with Pekah
in Israel, and with Jotham and Ahaz in Judaea. The
policy of Keziu seems to have been to ally himself
closely with the kingdom of Israel, and, thus strength-
ened, to ciu-ry on constant war against the kings of
.ludah. 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 I'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 I\. 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 alter this he was attacked by Tig-
lath-Pileser II., king of Assjria, to whom Ahaz in
his distiess had made application ; his annies 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 liczin and the destruction of Damascus
are distinctly mentioned). This treatment was pro-
bably owing to his being regarded as a rebel ; since
Damascus h.ad been taken and laid under tribute by
the .Assyrians some time previously (Kawliuson's
Ilertjdotus, i. 4fi7). [G. 11.]

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
tlieni, which is already noticed under Mehuni.m
[3i;> note; and see Sisera]. In 1 Esd. the name
appears a.s Dais;»n, in whicii the change from R to I)
seems to im])ly that 1 Esdras at one time e.^ted in
Syriac or some other Semitic language. [G.]

KEZ'ON (pP: 'Etrpti^: Ak-x.-PaCcSi/: Razon).

Tiie son of i'^liadnh, a ."Syrian, who when David de-
fiiited Hadadezer king of Zobah, i)Ut himself at the
head of a biuid of freebooters ami set up a petty
kingdom at Damascus { I K. xi. 23). Whctlier lie
w;ts an otiicer of Hadadezei', who, foreseeing the
destruction which David would inflict, j)rudeiitly
es<';ii)ed with .some followers ; or whether he gatliered
his l>and of the renmant of those who siwvived the
.slaughter, does not ai^war. The latter is more
lir<'bal)le. The settlement of liezon at Damascus
<xiuld not have been till some time after the dis-

KHEGroM

astrous battle in which the power of Hadadezer
was broken, tor we are told that David at the same
time det'eatfii 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 Nicolaus
in the 4th book of his History, quoted by Josephus
{Ant. vii. 5, §2), there is less dilKculty, 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, ;md 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 JIS. 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
liezon, 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, accoi-ding 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-
zion, when written in Hebrew characters, it has
been suggested that the latter is a corrupt reading
for the former. For this suggestion, however, there
does not appear to be sutHcient ground, though it
was adopted both by Sir John Marsham {Ckron.
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. [\V. A. W.]

RHE'GIUM {'V^ytov : 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 s(-ulptured on the vessel. And, again,
the notice of the intermediate position of Rhegium,
the waiting there for a southerly wind to cai'ry the
ship through the straits, the run to Puteoli with
such a wind within the twenty four houi's, 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 .\ugustus it received advantages which com-
bined with its geographical position in making it
importiuit throughout the duration of the Roman
eni})ire : it was prominently associated, in the middle
ages, with the A-aried tbrtiuies of the Greek emperors,
the Saracens, and the liomans: and still the modern
Rei/<jio 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 station
above that Sicilian town. [J. S. H.]

RHESA

RHE'SA ('Pr/ffo: Resn), son of Zorobabel in
the genealogy of Christ (Liiice iii. 27). I>ord A.
Hervey has ingeniously conjectured that Rhesa is
no person, but merely the title Bosh, i. e. " I'l'ince,"
originally attached to the name of Zerubbabel, and
gradually introduced as an independent name into
the genealogy. He thus removes an important
obstacle to the reconciliation of the pedigrees in
Matthew and Luke (Hervey's Genealogies, kc. 111,
114, 3.56-<;0). [(iKN"EAi/OGV OF Jesus Chkist,
G75a; ZERUHBAnEL.] [G.]

RHO'DA ('PSSri; Rhode), lit. Hose, the name
of a maid who announced Peter's arrival at the door
of Mary's liouse after his miraculous release from
prison (Acts xii. 13).

RHODES ('PSSos; nhodus). 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
.\xi. 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 Lycia. It seems, from all
the circumstances of the nan-ative, 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
hei-e, 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
Ithodes certain districts on the mainland [Caria,
Lycia] ; 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 be found in Ross, Reisen auf den
Griech. Inseln, iii. 70-113, and Reisen nach Eos,
Halikarnassos, Rhodes, &c., pp. 53-80. There is a
good 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

RIBLAH

1041

"■ Two incidents in the life of Herod the Great con-
nected with Rliodes, are well worthy of mention here.
When he went to Italy, about the close of the last Repub-
lican struggle, he found that the city had suffered much
from Cassius, and gave liberal sums to restore it (Joseph.
Ant. xiv. 14, 53). Here also, after the battle of Actium,
VOL. II.

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
tlie sun, on the other. It was a proverb that the
sun shone every day in Rhodes. [J. S. H.]

Coin of Uliodos.

RHO'DOCUS ('P($5o/coj: 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 ('P(55os : Rhodvs), 1 Mace. xv. 23.
[Rhodes.]

RIBA'I (^a''"!: 'PiySci in Sam., 'PeiSie ; Alex.
'Prifial in Chr. : Rihai). The father of Ittai the
Benjamiteof Gibeah, who was one of David's mighty
men (2 Sam. xxiii. 29 ; 1 Chr. xi. 31).

RIB'LAH, 1. (n^ann, with the definite article:

BTjAob inbothMSS.: Rehla). Oneof the landmarks
on the eastern boundary of the land of Israel, as
specified by Jloses (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 lias not yet been identified,
and which of the great fbunlains 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 inteiTened between Riblah and
Hamath. This will be evident from a mere enume-
ration of the landmarks.

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

2. The eastern boundary commenced from Hazar-
enan, turning south : Shepham, Riblah, passing
east of the spring, to east side of Sea 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 eai'ly Jewish interpreters have felt the force
of this. Confused as is the catalogue of the boun-
dary in the Targum Pseudojonathan of Num. xxxiv.,
it is plain that the author of that version considers
" the spring " as the spring of Jordan at Banias,
and Riblah, therefore, as a place neai' it. With
this agrees Parchi the Jewish traveller in the 13th
and i4th centuries, who expressly discriminates

he met Augustus and secured his favour {ib. xv. 6, >J6).

b Originally it appears to have stood 'Ap^^Aa; but the
'Ap has now attached itself to the preceding name—
2e7r0anap. Can this be the Arbela of 1 Mace. i.x. 2 ?

••' if Sir. Porter's identificatiuns ot Zedad and Hatsar-
enan are adopted, the difficulty is increased tenfold.

3 X

1042

RIDDLE

between the two (see the extracts in Zimz's Ben-
jiimiri, ii. 418), and in our own day .). 1). Michaelis
(Bihel fur Uti'jelehrten ; Suppl. ad Lexica, No.
2313), and BontVerius, the learned editor of Euse-
bius' Onomasticon.

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

2. Riblah in the land of Hamath (n?^"!, once
nn'?3"l, «. e. Ribkthah : » Ae/3Ao0a in both 5ISS. :
Hcbkitha). 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. Heie Nebuchadnezzar waited while the
sieges of Jerusalem and of Tyre were being con-
<hictc<l by his lieutenants; hither were biought 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.
xxr. 6, 20, 21). In like manner Pharaoh-Necho,
after his successful victory over the Babylonians at
Carchemish, returnal to Kiblah ami summoned Je-
hoahaz from Jerusalem before him (2 K. xxiii. 33).

This liiblah has no doubt been discovered, still
retaining its ancient name, on the right (^east)
bank of the el As// (Orontes), upon the great road
which connects Bardbek and Hums, about 35
miles N.E. of the foiTner 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. lies. iii. 545). He de-
scribes it as " lying on the banks of a mountain
sti-eam in the midst of a vast and. fertile plain
yielding the most abundant supplies of forage.
From this point thg roads were open by Aleppo
and the liuphrates 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
Lind." It appears to have been tirst alluded to by
Buckingham in 1816.

liiblah 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 K
to I) 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. [Dh'.lath.] [G.]

RIDDLE (mTl : alviyna, TrpA^XTi/xa : 2W0-
hleimi, propositi')). The Hebiew word is derivefl
fiom an Arabic root meaning " to bend oft," " to
twist," and is used for artiiice (Dan. viii. 23), a
f.rovcrb 'Prov. i. 6), a song(Ps. xlix. 4, Ixxviii. 2),
an oracle (Num. xii. 8), a ]iarable (Ez. xvii. 2), and
in general any wise or inti icate sentence (Ps. .xciv.
4; llab. ii. 6, &c.), as well as a riddle in our sense
of the wonl (Judg. xiv. 12-W). In these senses
we may compare the phrit^es (Trpo<p^ \6yoov,
(TTpotpal irapafioKSiv (VVisd. viii. 8 ; EccUis. xxxix.
2), and TTfpnrKoKTi \6ywv (Eur. Phven. 497 •
Gesen. s. v.), and the Latin scirpits, which appears
Ui have been similarly used (Aul. Gell. A'oct. Att.

■ The two great MSS. of the LXX.— Vatican -(Mai') and
A1''X. — preseni the name as lollow: —

2 K. xxMl. Xi, 'A^Aaa; AeftSna.

XXV. 6. ■JtpS(P\a»af; AtjSAaOa.

RIDDLE

xii. 6). Augustine defines an enigma to be any
" obscura allegoria " (de Trin. xv. 9), and points
out, as an instiince, the passage about the daughter
of the horse-leech in Prov. xxx. 15, whioii has
been elaborately explained by Bellermann in a mo-
nograph on the subject {Aenigmata Hebraica, Erf.
1798). Many pa.ssages, 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 diflei-s fiom all others. The
liddles which the queen of Sheba came to ask of So-
lomon (1 K. X. 1, •^A^e Treipdaat avrhv iv alviy-
uaai ; 2 Chr. ix. 1; were rather " hard questions "
referring to profound enqiiiries. Solomon is said,
however, to have been very fond of the riddle
proper, for Joseph us quotes two profane historians
(Menander of Ephesus, and Dius) to authenticate a
story that Solomon proposed numerous riddles to
Hiram, for the non-solution of which Hiiam was
obliged to pay a large tine, 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 aiviyfia occurs only once in the N. T. (1 Cor.
xiii. 12, "darkly," iv alvly/xart, 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 : " maiiiiestis pascimur, obscuris
cxercemur" {de Doct. Christ, ii. 6).

We know that all ancient nations, and especially
Orientals, have been fond of riddles (Rosenmiiller,
Moryenl. iii. 68). We find tiaces of the custom
among the Arabs (Koran, xxv. 35), and indeed
several Aiabic 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
de\-ices than what we call riddles, although they
are very ingenious. The Persians call them Algdz
and Maamma (D'Herbelot, s. v. Algaz). They
were also known to the Ancient Egvptians (Ja-
blonski. Pantheon Aegypt. 48). They were espe-
cially used in banquets both by Greeks and Romans
(Miiller, Dor. ii. 392; Athen. x. 457 ; Pollux, vi.
] 07 ; 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
gi'oundlessly supposed that the proverbs of Solo-
mon, Lemuel, and Agur, were propounded at feasts,
like the parables spoken by our Lord on similm-
occasions (Luke xiv. 7, &c.).

Riddles were generally proposed in verse, like the
celebi-ated riddle of Samson, which, however, was
properly (;is Voss points out, Fmtt. Oratt. iv. 11)
no riddle at all, because the Philistines did not
possess the only clue on which the solution could
depend. For this reason Samson had carefully con-
cealed the fact even fiom 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, V^it. Horn.).

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

2 K. xxv. 20, AepAaSa ; AePKaOa.
„ 21, ■PefiKa.fia;
Ji-T. lii. n, in, 26, 27, Ae/3Aaei, in both.

RIDDLE

i*: continuous tlirontjhout the passage (as in Ez.
xvii. 2, and in such poems as the Syrinx attributed
to Theocritus); and the lesser enigma or inraiviyixa,
where tlie difBoulty is concentrated in tl\e peculiai' use
of some one woid. It mavbe useful to refer to one
or two instances of the latter, since they are very
frequently to be found in the Bible, and especially
in the Propliets. Such is the play on the word
D3K' ("a portion," and "Shechem," the town of
Ephraim) in Cen. ,\h-iii. 22 ; on IIVO {mdtxor,
" a fortillod city," and DpVD, Mizmim, Egypt)
iu llic. vii. 12 ; on TpEJ' {^Shahed, " an almond-
tree"), and Ipy {sh'dkad, " to hasten''), in Jer. i.
11 ; on HD-n {Diunah, meaning " Edom " and
"the land of death"'), in Is. xxi. 11 ; on ";]t"K'>*
Sheshach (meaning " Babylon," and pei haps "ar-
rogance "), in Jer. xxv. 26, li. 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. yeufj-irpla] of which
instances may be found in Caipzov {App. Crit. p.
542), Reland [A)it. Hehr. i. 25), and some of the
commentators on Rev. xiii. 16-18. Thus CJTIJ
(ndchdsh), " serpent," is made by the Jews one of
the names of the Messiah, because its numerical
value is equivalent to ^''t^'JD ; and the names

Shushan and Esthei' 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 numei'ical
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 ai-e not unfre-
([uent, in some of the Fathers. We have already
mentioned (see Cross) the mystic e,\-planation by
Clem. Alexandrinus of the number 318 in Gen.
xiv. 14, and by TertuUian of the number 300 (re-
piesented 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 ot
the bciist, are to be found in the so-called Sibylline
verses. We quote one which is exactly similar to
it, the answer being found iu the name 'Irjaovs
= 888, thus: 1= 10 H- tj =8 -f cr = 200 -1- o = 70
+ V =400+s = 200 = 888. It is as follows,
and is extremely curious :

^fei crapKO<J)dpos 0n)Tor!-6ju.otov/iiei'OS iu yd
TeVcrepa i^wniei/Ta ^f'pet, ra 5' a4>Mva Sv avT<Z
Si(T(To)v a<TTpayd\(x)v (?), apt0)ixbi' 6' oAov i^ovoiJ.rjj'0>*
OKTio yap fiovd&a^, oo"0"a? 6eKa5a9 cttI Tovrot?,
1)6' eKaTOiriSas oktio aTrioTOTepois ai/dpuiiroi.';
oOi'O/xa 5r/AajO'€i.

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 naine as an answer to the
number 666. The true answer must be settled by
the Apocalyptic commentators. Jlost of the Fathei-s

EIMMON

1043

'^ In this passage it is generally thought that Sbeshach
is put for Babel, by the principle of alphabetical inversion
known as the athbash. It will be seen that the passages
above quoted are chiefij' instances of paronomasia. On

stipposai, even as far back as Irenaeus, the name
Adreivos to be indicated. A list of the other very
numerous solutions, proposed in diflerent ages, mav
be fbynd in Elliott's Horae Ap'jcali/pticae, froriii
which we have quoted several of these instancts
{Hor. Apoc. iii. 222-234). [F. W. F.]

EIM'MON (p)3"1 : 'Pefi/xdiv: I^emmon). Rim-
mon, a Benjamite of Beeroth, was the father of
Rechab and Baanah, the murderers of Ishbosheth
(2 Sam. iv. 2, 5, {);.

RIM'MON (f\^-\ : 'Penfidv : Bemmon). 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 iu 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 thtis the deity wor-
shipped under this title (comjtare Pomoni, from
pomum). Ursinus {Arboretum Bihl. cap. 32, 7j
explains Rimmon as the pomegranate, the emblem
of the fertilizing principle of nature, the personified
nattira naturans, a symbol of frequent occuiTence
in the old religions (Bahr, Symbolik, ii. 122). If
this be the true origin of the name, it present* us
with a relic of the ancient tree-worship of the East,
which we know to liave prevailed in Palestine.
But Selden rejects this derivation, and proposes
instead that Rimmon is from tlie root □•IT, rum,
" to be high," and signifies " most high ;" like
the Phoenician Elioun, and Heb. jiyj?. Hesj'-

chius gives 'Pa^uas, b vipiarros 0e6s. Clericus,
Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and Gesenius jvere of the
same opinion.

Movers {Phoen. i. 196, &c.) regards Rimmon as
the abbreviated form of Hadad-Rimmon (as Peor
for Baal-Peor), Hadad being the sun-god of the
Syrians. Combining this with the pomegianate,
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 Hadadriramon 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.J

EDI'MON (iyi?3"1, i. e. Rimmono : rj 'Feft/xt&v :
Eemmono). A city of Zebulun belonging to the
Merarite Levites (1 Chr. vi. 77). There is great
discrepancv between the list in which it occurs and
the parallel catalogue of Josh. sxi. 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 Rimmon of Zebuhiu (Josh. xix. 13),
in the A. V. Remmon-methoar. The redundant
letter was probably transferred, in copying, from the
succeeding word — at an earlv date, since all the MSS.

the profound use of this figure by the prophets and other
writers see Ewald, Die Propheten d. Alt. Bund. i. 48 ;
Steinlhal, Urspr. d. Sprache, p. 23.

3X2

1044

KIMMON

appear to exhibit it, as does also tlie Targuni of
Joseph. [G.]

RIM'MONfjim: 'Zpw/xcie; Alex. 'Pemmcoz ;
'Pffifiiwp ; ricmmon). A town in the southeili por-
tion of Judah (Josh. xv. o2), allotted to Simeon
(Josh. .\ix. 7 ; 1 Chr. iv. o2 : in the former of
these two passages it is inaccurately given in the
A. V. as RKMiMON). 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 retui-n from
Babylon (Neh. xi. 29) the two are joined (ps"1 ^J/ :

LXX. omits: et in Remmon), 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 Jobhua,
from which it may be infei-red 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
Onomasticon 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 Goba (the northern frontier of
the southern kingdom] are named as the limits of
the change which is to take place in the aspect and
formation of the country. In this case Jerome, both
in the Vulgate and in his Commentary (m Zech.
xiv. 9 seqq.), joins the two names, and understands
them to denote -a hill north of Jerasalem, 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.J

RIM'MON PA'EEZ (f^S jbT : 'Pf^^^'i"' *''-
pis). The name of a march-station in the wilder-
ness (Num. xxxiii. 19, 20). Rimmon is a common
name of lociility. The latter word is the same as thgt
found in the plural form in Baal-Peiazim, " Baal
of the breaches." Peihaps some local configu)ation,
such as a " cleft," might account for its being added.
It stand's between Rithmah and Libnah. No place
now known has been identified with it. [H. H.l

RIM'MON, THE ROCK (jiGnri" y^D ;
T) TreTpa rod "Pe/n/xdii/ ; Joseph, irerpa 'Poo : peira
cujus rocalmlum est Bemmon ; pdra Remmon).
A difl' (such seems i-ather the force of the Hebrew
word selti) or inaccessible natural fastness, in which
the six hundred Benjamites who escaped the slauoh-
ter of Gibeah took I'efuge. and maintained them-
selves for four months until released by the act of
the general body of the tribes (Judg. xx. 45, 47,
x.xi. 13).

It is described as in the " wilderness" (miJbnr),
that is, the wild uncultivated (though not unpro-
ductive) country which lies on the east of the
central highlands of Benjamin, on which. Gibeah wi\s
situated — between them and the Jordan Valley.

" In two out of its four occurrences, the article is
omitted both in the Hebrew and LXX.

BINNAH

Here the name is still found attached to a village
perched on the summit of a conical chalky hill,
visible in all directions, and commanding the whole
country ( Kob. 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. Oii
the south side it lises to a height of several hundred
feet from the great rav-ine of the Wady Muti/dh ;
while on the west side it is almost equally isolated
by a cioss valley of great depth (Poi ter, Handhh.
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 Gibe;ih {Tuleil el-Fulj.
Thus in eveiy particular of name, character, and
situation it agrees with the requiiements 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 (ny2t3 : SoktuXws: annulus). The
ring was regarded 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 tabhaath heing derived from a root signifying
" to impress a seal." It was hence the symbol of
authority, and as such was presented by Phaiaoh
to Joseph (Gen. xli. 42), by Ahasuerus to Haman
(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. 2.') ; Ecclus. xlix. 11).
Such rings were worn not only by men, but by
women (Is. iii. 21 ; Mishn. Sahb. 0, §3), and aie
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, fi'om Ex.
xxviii. 1 1, that the rings contained a stone engraven
with a device, or with the owner's nam.e. Numerous
specimens of p]gyptian 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

EtTptinn Ri

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 "j.
It appears also to have prevailed among the Jews
of the Apostolic age; for in Jam. ii. 2, a rich man
is described as xpff oSoktuAios, meaning not simply
" with a gold ring," as in the A. V., but " golden-
ringed " (like the xpfO'o'xf'P) "golden-handed" of
Lucian, Timon, 20), implying equally well the pre-
sence of several gold rings. For the term f/dlil,
rendered " ring" in Cant. v. 14, see Ornaments.

[W. L. B.]

RIN'NAH (HJ-l: 'Ara ; Alex. 'Vavvcl>v :

Rinna). One of the sons of Shimon in an obscure

and fragmentary genealogy of the descendants of

Judah (1 Chr. iv.l'O). In the LXX. and Vulgate

EIPHATH

he is made " the son of Hauan," Beu-haiiaii being
thus translated.

RITHATH (nQn: 'Pi<p<id; Alex. 'Vupae in
Chr. : liiphath), the second son of Gomer, and the
biother of Ashkenaz and Togarmah (Gen. x. 3).
The Hebrew te.xt in 1 Chr. i. 6 gives the form
Diphath," but this arises out of a clerical error
similar to that which gives the forms Rodanim and
Hadad for Dodanim and Hadar (1 Chr. i. 7, 5u ;
Gen. .\.\xvi. 39). The name Riphath occurs only
in the genealogical table, and hence there is little
to guide us to the lociility which it indicates. The
name 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. Ajit. i. 6, §1). This last view
is ceitainly favoured by the contiguity of Ash-
kenaz and Togarmah. The weight of opinion is,
however, in favour of the Rhipaean mountains,
which Knobel ( Volkert. p. 44) identities 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 tlie 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 leceived etymo-
logy of that name (from piirai, " blasts ") be correct,
the coincidence in sound with Riphath is merely
accident;il, 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.]

EIS'SAH(nD-|: 'Pecrffd: Bessa). The name,
identical with the word which signifies " a woiTn,"
is that of a march-station in the wilderness (Num.
xxxiii. 21, 22). It lies, as there given, between
Libnah and Kehelathah, and has been considered
(Winer, s. v.) identical with Rasa in the Peuting.
Ifiiicr., 32 Roman miles from Ailah (Elahj, and
203 miles south of Jerusalem, distinct, however,
from the 'P^trcra of Josephus (Ant. xiv. 15, §2j.
No site has been identified with Rissah. [H. H.]

KITH'MAH (noni : 'Pada/xa: Eethrna). The
name of a march-station in the wilderness (Num.
xxxiii. 18, 19j. It stands there next to flazeroth
[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

with Dn"l, Arab. |»o ., commonly rendered "juni-
per," but more correctly "broom." It carries the
alFirmative H, common in names of locality, and
found especiall}' among many in the catalogue of
Num. xxxiii. [H. H.]

KrVER. In the sense in which we employ the

RIVER

1046

» 03^"^. This reading is preferred by Bochart (Phaleg,
iii. 10), and is connected by him with the names of the
town Tobata and the mountain Tibium in the N. of Asia
Jlinor.

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 never
seen one. With the exception of the Jordan and
the Litant/, the streams of the Holy Land are either
entirely dried up in the summer months, and con-
veited into hot lanes of glaring stones, or else re-
duced to very small streamlets deeply sunk in a
narrow bed, and concealed from view by a dense
growth of shrubs.

The cause of this is twofold : on the one hand
the hilly nature of the country — a central mass
of highland descending on each side to a lower
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 difierence
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 ("IHJ) . Possibly

used of the Jordan in Ps. Ixvi. 6, Ixxiv. 15 ; of the
great Slesopotamian and Egyptian rivers generally
in Gen. ii. 10 ; Ex. vii. 19 ; 2 K. -xvii. 6 ; Ez. iii. 15,
&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. x.xxi.
15), ndhar is uniformly rendered "river" in our
vei-sion, and accurately, since it is never applied to
the fleeting fugitive torrents of Palestine.

2. The term for these is nachal (TTIJ), for which
our. translators have used promiscuously, and 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.''

Neither of these words expresses the thing in-
tended ; but the term " brook " is peculiaily 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 aie deep
abiupt 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 IJsau, 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
ton-ent has subsided, utterly unlike "brooks." Un-

•> Jerome, in his Quaestiones in Oenesim, xxvi. 19,
draws the following curious distiuction between a valley
and a torrent ; " Et hie pro ralle torrenx scripius es^,
nunqtiam anim, in valle inveMitur puteus (Uiuae vivae."

1046

RIVER OF EGYPT

I'oituiiately our 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 Annotations (on Num. xiii. 23), says that
" bourne " has both meanings ; but " bourne" is now
obsolete in English, though still in use in Scotland,
where, owiug to the mountainous nature of the
country^ the " bums " partake of the nature of the
vxijys of Palestine in the irregularity of their flow.
Jlr. Burton {Geo{f. Jouni. .\xiv. 2o9) adopts the
lUilian fiutnara. Othei-s have proposed the Indian
te;-m 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 ("liX*), 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, .ler. xlvi.
7, 8 ; Am. viii. 8, ix. 5, where they substitute " a
llood " — much to the detiiment of the prophet's
metaphor. [See Nile, vol. ii. p. 539 6.]

4. Yubal (?3-1''), from a root signifying tumult
or fulness, occui-s only six times, in four of which
it is rendered " river," viz. Jer. xvii. 8; Dan. viii.

2, 3, 6.

5. Peleg (37S), 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," whei-e the allusion is probably
to the artificial streams with which the pastoral
and agricultural country of Reuben was in-igated
(Ewald, Didder, i. 129; Gesen. Thes. 1103 6).

6. Aphik (p''QK). 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. 12; Ez. vi.

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

RIVER OF EGYPT. Two Hebrevv terms
are thus rendered in the A. V.

1. D^n^O inj ; 7roTa/j,hs Aiyvirrov : flavins

Aetjypti (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 brwich.

2. D^iyp TTIJ : xeijuappous Pdyinrov, <j>dpa.y^
Alyinrrov, irora/xhs AlyvTrrov, 'VivoK6povpa. pi. :
torrens Acgypti, rivus Ac/ypii (Num. xxxiv. 5;
Josh. XV. 4, 47; 1 K. viii. (J5 ; 2 K. xxiv. 7 ; Is. xxvii.
12, in the last passage translated " the sticam ol'
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 V\'adi-l-'Areesh. The centre of the
valley is occupied l)y the bed of this torrent, which
only liows alter rains, as is usual in the desert valleys.

RIVER OF EGYPT

The correctness oi tnis opinion can only be decided
by an examination of the passages in which the
term occurs, for the ancient translations do not aid
us. When they were made there must have been
great uncertainty on the subject. In the LXX.
the teiTii is translated by two literal meanings, or
perhaps three, but it is doubtful whether ?n3 can

be rendered "river," and is once represented by
Kliinocorura (or Rhinocolura), the name of a town
on the coast, near the Wadi-l-'Areesh, to which the
mode;Ti 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 territoiy, 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 Egj'pt 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 tiiken
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
Abraham.

In certain parallel passages the Nile is distinctly
specified instead of " the Nachal of Egypt." In
the promise to Abraham, the Nile, " the river of
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 territoiy yet to be conquered :
" This [is] the land that yet remaineth : ail the
regions of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, from the
Sihor, which [is] before Egypt, even unto the bor-
ders of Ekion 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 inipoiiance 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 c&mpare the name with known names of the
Nile. Of the briuiches 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-'Arcesh 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 G:iza 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 theni or to the

EIVER OF EGYPT

Egyptians, on account of their isolated josition
and the sterility of the country, though no doubt
maintaining a half-independence." All doubt on
this point seems to be set at rest by a passage, in a
hieroglyphic inscrijition of Sethee I., head of the
xixth" dynasty, B.C. cir. 1340, on tiie north wall
of the great temple of El-Karnak, which mentions
"the foreigners of the SHASU from the fort of
TARU to the land of KANANA " (SHASU SHA'A
KM SHTEM EN TARU EK PA-KAN'ANA,
r.rugsch, Geogr. 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 I. to Egypt from an eastern
cxiieditiou, near the inscription just mentioned,
to have been between a Leontopolis and a branch ot
the Nile, or ])erhaps 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, iu its most flourishing period,
evidently extended no further than the east of the
Deltii, 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 conilition of tributaries,
as doubtless was also done by the Pharaohs.

It must be remembered that the specification of
a certain boundary does not necessarily prove that
the actual lands of a stjite 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

" Herodotus, whose account is rather obscure, says that
from Phoenicia to the borders of the city Cadytis (proljably
Gaza) the country belonged to the Palaestine Syrians ;
from Cadytis to Jeuysus, to the AralJian king; then to the
Syrians again, as far as Lake Serbonis, near Mount Casius.
At Lake Serbonis, Egypt began. The eastern extremity
of Lake Serbonis is somewhat to tlie 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-
ritorj' further east) does not greatly exceed three days'
Journey (iii 5. See Kawlinson's edit., ii. 398-400). If we
adopt Capt. Spratfs identifications of I'elusium and Mount
Casius, we must place them much nearer together, and

lllVEK OF EGYPT

104;

(1 K. iv. 21, comp. 24). When, therefore, it is
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 sticam'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-Mizraim is the Wddi-l-'Areesh, we must
conclude that the name Shihor is also applied to the
latter, although elsewhere designating the Nile,'' for
we have seen that Nachal-Mizraim and Shihor are
used interchangeabl}' 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. [SillHOR OF Egyi'T ;
SlIIOR.]

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 Nachtil-
Mizraim may come from a lost dialect, and the

parallel Arabic word wadee, t^.^!*, though ordi-
narily used for valleys and their winter-toiTents,
as in the case of the Wddi-l-'Areesh itself, has been
employed by the Arabs in Spain for true rivers, th(!
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 NeiAos. It may, indeed, be objected that NeiAos
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,
TOI2 TE EAAHNIK012 rPAMMA2IN), in the
lists of countries and nations, or tribes, conquered
by, or subject to, the Pharaohs, as early as the
reign of Amenoph III., E.c. cir. 1400."= An Iranian
and even a Greek connexion with Egypt as early as
the time of the Exodus, is theretbre not to be
treated as an impossibility. It is, however, re-
markable, that the word NeiAos does not occur in
the Homeric poems, as though it were not of
Sanskrit origin, but derived from the Egyptians or
Phoenicians.

Brugsch compares the Egyptian MUAW EN
KEM " Water of Egypt," mentione-i 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
unlikely.

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 Egypti.ins, and
doubtless of the Phoenician and other colonists of north-
eastern Egj'pt, 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
dev Namen der lonier auf den Aeg. Uaikmalern, Kijnigl.
Akad. Berlin). His views have, however, been com-
bated by Bunsen (Egyjits I'lace, iii. 603-606), Brugsch
{Geoyr. [nschr. ii. p. 19, pi. siii. no. 2), and De Kouge
(Tumbeau d'Ahmes, p. 43).

1048

EIZPAH

evideuce iu favour of his conjectural identification
with the stream of \Vadi-l-'Areesh {Geoij. Inschr.
i. 54, 65, pi. vii. no. 303). [II. S. 1'.]

RIZ'PAH CnaVI: 'ViT'pa and 'Peffcpa: Jo-
seph. 'Pat(r(pa: Ecspha), concubine to king Saul,
and mother of his two sons Armoni and Mephi-
bosheth. Like many others of the prominent female
cliaracters of the Old Testament — Kuth, Rahab,
Jezebel, &c. — Kizpah would seem to have been a
foreigner, a Hivite, descended from one of the
ancient worthies of that nation, Ajah or Aiah,» 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 I
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 i
herself a Canaanitess,'' is perhaps not a case in [
point ; but Solomon, Rehoboam, and their sue- i
cessors, seem to have had their harems filled with |
foreign women. j

After the death of Saul mid occupation of the
country west of the Jordan by the Philistines,
Rizpali 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 folse — and from
Abner's vehement denial we should naturally con-
clude that it was false — involved more than meets
the ear of a modei'n 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,
Jaiws of Moses, art. 54.) It therefore amounted
to an insinuation that Abner w;is 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 familiar
objects to young and old in the whole Bible (2 Sam.
xxi. 8-11). Every one can appreciate tlie 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

" The Syriac-Peshito and Arabic Versions, in 2 Sam.
iii., read Ana for Aiab— the name of another ancient
llivite, the lirotherof AJah, and equally the son of Zibeon.
liut 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 liave con-
founded one with the other.

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

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

■^ Tna, 2 Sam. xxi. 6. * p^T\, Jias-Salc.

' 1. 7T3 ; apn'ttyrj, apTray/xara ; rapinae.

2. p"lS, from p"lS, "break;" aSi/cta; dilaceraUo.

3. ■)[»>, from ^^t^', " waste ;" oAeSpos ; rapinae.

4. 77^ ; Trpoi/o/ii) ; praeda ; " prey," " spoil."
[Booty.]"

(•i). ROBBKR : —

1. Tt13, part, from Tt3, "rob;" TrpoKO/Lieuur ; rostaris.
•1. pis, part, of |^"IS, " break ;" Aoifios ; l<xlio ;
Mic. ii. 13, " breaker."

ROBBERY

whole of the ancient world (see Ps. Ixxix. 2 ; Hem.
11. i. 4, 5, &c. &c.). But it is questionable whether
the ordinary conception of the scene is accurate.
The seven victims were not, as the A. V. implies,
" hung ;" they were crucified. The seven crosses,
were planted in the rock on the top of the sacred
hill of Gibeah ; the hill which, though not Saul's
native place,*^ was through his long residence there
so identified with him as to retain his name to the
latest existence of the Jewish nation (1 Sam. xi. 4,
&c., and see Joseph. B. J. v. 2, §1). The whole
or part of this hill seems at the time of this occur-
rence to have been in some special manner ^ dedicated
to Jehovah, possibly the spot on which Ahiah the
priest had deposited "the Ark when he took refuge iu
Gibeah during the Philistine war (1 Sam. xiv. 18).^
The victims \vere 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 = 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. iu 1 Sam.
xxvii. 10, where it is used in the sense of "raid"
or " inroad," the Hebrew word (D2i*B) 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 to
the term is expressed in the A. V. by " way " and
" path." [G.]

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

3. D'')3'ik, Jobxviii. 9; Sii/dli'Te;; «Yis. Targum.with
A. v., has " robbers ;" but it is most commonly rendered
as LXX., Job v. 5, sitientes.

4. 'nti' ; AT)a-n)s ; latro : from "^^Z*, " waste."

5. riDCJ' ; ex^po;; (Uripiens; A. V. "spoiler."

6. 335 ; KAc'jrn)? ; /wr ; A. V. " thief."
(3.) ROB: —

1. TT3 ; Siaprrafw ; depopulor.

2. ?TjI ; a(/)aipe'(o ; violenter aufero.

3. "l-ly, " return," " repeat ;" hence in Pi. siUTOund,
circumvent (Ps. cxix. 61); TrepiTrAax^vai ; circumplecti ;
usually affirm, reiterate assertions (Ges. p. 997).

4. Y^p, "cover," "hide;" TrTepW^u) ; affigo (Ges.
p. 1190).

5. nDK* ; iSiapTrafco; dlripio.

C. DDC (same as last) ; Trpoe ofieiiu ; depra£dor
1. DJU ; KA.e'jrTu> ; /uj w ; A. V. "steal."

ROBBERY

teir.atically orgjinized, lobbery has ever been one of
the principal employments of the nomad tiil)es of
the I'^ast. From the time of Islunael to the pi-esont
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
rei;;arded as in the highest degree creditable (Geu.
>vi. 12; Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 137, 157).
An instance of an enterprize of a truly Bedouin
character, but distinguished by the exceptional fea-
tures belonging to its principal actor, is seen in the
nijcht-foray of David (1 Sam. -x.wi. 6-12), with
wiiich also we may fairly compare Horn. //. K.
204, &c. Predatory inroads on a large scale are
seen in the incursions of the Sabaeaus and Chal-
daeans on the property of Job (Job i. 15, 17); the
reveuije coupled with plunder of Simeon and Levi
((jen. xxxiv. 28, 29) ; the repiisals of the Hebrews
upon the Midiaiiites (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 countiy
during the s;ime period, are seen in the " liers-in-
wait" of the men of Shechem (Judg. ix. 25 J, and
the mountain retreats of David in the cave of Adul-
1am, 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.
ixii. 1, 2, xxiii. 19-25, xxvi. 1, xxvii. 6-10, xxx. 1).

Similar disorder in the countiy, complained of
more than once by the prophets (Hos. iv. 2, vi.
9 ; ]\lic. 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 tbrmidable bands of
robbers, so easily collected and with so much ditli-
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 OF 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 lor the ox, and four sheep for the
sheep.

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
thief 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, i. e. through his negli-
gence, he was to make restitution to the owner.
[Oath.]

EOGELIM

1049

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 Moses, §284). On the other hand,
see Bertheau on Prov. vi. ; and Keil, Arch. Hehr.
§154. — Man-stealing was punishable with death
(Ex. xxi. 16; Dent. xxiv. 7). — Invasion of light in
land was strictly forbidden (Dent, 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 {'Po^od/j.: Bohoam), Ecclus. xlvii.
23 ; Matt. i. 7. [Reiioboam.]

ROE, ROEBUCK (^ny, tze'u (m.) ; n»3V,

tzebiyi/d/i (f.) : SopKas, SSpKcov, SopKdStoi> : caprea,
damula). There seems to t>e 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
{S. ^ 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 (T/(e Land and the
Book, p. 172) says that the mountains of Naphtali
" abound in gazelles to this day."

4i'

.-s»^^^

GazfUa Aralfica.

The ai-iel gazelle {G. Arabica), which, if not a
different species, is at least a well marked variety
of the dorcas, is common in Syria, and is hunted
by the Arabs with a flilcon and a greyhound ; the
repeiited attacks of the bird upon the head of the
animal so bewilder it that it tails an easy prey to
the gi-eyhound, 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 of
the gazelle has long been the theme of Oriental
praises. L^^- ^-J

EO'GELIM (f^'i'ill : 'Pcu-yeA.A.€tM,and so Alex.,

1050 ROHGAH

though once 'PcayeXein : RogcUm). The resiJcHce
of Barzillai the Gileadit« (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 31)
in the highhmds east of tlie Jordan. It is 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 tlie spot.

If interpreted as Hebrew the name is derivable
from reijd, 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, CctMb, nann, Kcri:

'Vooya ; Alex. Oiipaoyd : Roaja). An Ashente,
of the sons of Shamer (1 Chr. vii. 34).

RO'IMUS {'Voiixos). PvEHUM 1 (1 Esd. v. 8).
The name is not traceable in the Vulgate.

ROLL (n?JD ; Ke^aXis). A book in ancient

times consisted of a single long strip of paper or
jiarchment, which was usually kept rolled up on a
stick, and was unrolled when a person wished to
i-e;id it. Hence arose the term megillah, from
ijalal,* " to roll," stiictly answering to the Latin
volumcn, whence comes our volume ; hence also the
expressions, " to spread" and " roll together," '' 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. xl. 7 ;
Ez. ii. 9), but occasionally " roll" stands by itself
(Zech. V. 1,2; Ezr. vi. 2). The Ke(f>aXis 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. The
use of the term megillah implies, of couise, the ex-
istence of a soft and pliant material: what this ma-
terial was in the Old Testament period, we are not
infoitned ; 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 within
and without" (Ez. ii. 10). The writing was ar-
)anged in columns, resembling a door in shape,
and hence deriving their Hebrew name,' just as
"column," from its resemblance to a cohiinna or
pillar. It has been asserted that the term megillah
does not occur before the 7th cent. B.C., being first
used by Jeremiah (Hitzig, in Jer. xxxvi. 2) ; and
the conclusion has been drawn tliat the use of such
materials as parchment was not known until that
])eriod (Ewald, Gesch. i. 71, note; Geseu. Tlies.
p. 289). Tliis is to assume, perhaps too confi-
dently, a late date for the composition of Ps. xl.,
and to ignore the collateral evidence arising out of
the expression " roll together " uted by Is. xxxiv.
4, and also out of the probable reference to the
Pentateuch in Ps. xl. 7, " the roll of the book," a
copy of which was deposited by the side of the ark
(Detit. xxxi. 2G). We may here add that the term
in Is. viii. 1, rendered in the A. V. " roll," more
correctly means tablet. [W. L. B.]

ROMAN EMPIRE

ROMAM'TI-EZ'ER ("ITV -TlOnn: 'Pa-juerOi-

f^ep ; Alex. 'Pojfi.eix6i-4(ep in 1 Chr. xxv. 4, but
'Pci)jue9-/u.ie{"6p in 1 Chr. xxv. 31 : Romemthiezer).
One of the fourteen sons of Heman, and chjef of the
24th division of the singers in the i-eign of David
(1 Chr. xxv. 4, 31).

ROMAN EMPIRE. The history of the
Pioman Empire, properly so adled, extends over a
period of rather more than five hundred years, viz.
from the battle of Actium, B.C. 31, when Augustus
became sole ruler of the Uoman world, to the abdi-
cation of Augustulus, A.D. 476. The Empire, how-
ever, in the sense of the dominion of Rome over a
large number of conquered nations, was in full force
and had reached wide limits some time before tiie
monarchy of Augustus was established. The notices
of Roman history which occur in the Bible are con-
fined to the last century and a half of the common-
wealtli and the first century of the imperial
monarchy.

The first historic mention of Rome in the Bible
is in 1 Maoc. i. 10. Though the date of tlie founda-
tion of Rome coincides nearly with the beginning
of the reign of Pekah in Israel, it was not till the
beginning of the 2nd century B.C. that the Romans
had leisure to interfere in the affairs of the East.
When, however, the power of Caithage had been
eflectually broken at Zama, B.C. 202, Itoman arms
and intrigues soon made themselves felt throughout
JIacedonia, Gi-eece, and Asia Minor. About the
year 161 B.C. Judas Jlaccabaeus heard of the Ro-
mans as the conquerors of Philip, Perseus, and
Antiochus (1 Mace. viii. .5, 6). " It was told him
also how they destroyed and brought under their
dominion all other kingdoms and isles that at any
time resisted them, but with their friends and such
as relied upon them they kept amity " (viii. 11, 12).
In order to strengthen himself against Demetrius
king 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 ]\Iacc. iv. 11,
viii. 10, 36, xi. 34. In the course of the narrative
mention is made of the Roman senate (jh ^ovXev-
TTipiou, 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
suflice.

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

bhi.

bh'.

ti In the Hebrew, t^'']S (2 K. xix. 1.1) and 775 (Is.
xxxiv. 4): in the Greek, avan-Tvo-creir und TiTiicTCTeii
(Luke iv. 17, 20).

ninb'i

(A. V. " leaves," Jer. xxxvi. 23). Hitzig
maintains tliat the word moans "leaves,"' and that tlio
megillah in this case was a book like our own, consisting
ot numerous pages.

ROMAN EMPIRE

next year Pompey himself marched an army into
Judaea and took Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 2,
3, 4 ; B. J. i. G, 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 Ivoman
interests. Finally, Antipatei's son, Herod the (Ji-eat,
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 liave exacted from them a
fourth part of their agricultural produce in addition
to the titlie paid to Hyrcanus {Ant. xiv. 10, §(J).
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
appeal's to have been taken by the people {Ajit.
xvii. 2, §2). On the banishment of Arehelaus,
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
Herod.

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
slate 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. Paul,
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) —
of Cyrenius, " governor of Syria " (Luke ii. 2) — of
Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the " governors,"
i. e. procurators, of Judaea — of the " tetrarchs "
Herod, Phihp, 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-
fiaa-Tds) and Caesar (Acts xxv. 10, 11, 21, 25;
Phil. iv. 22), as 6 Kvpw^, " 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
journevs (Acts xiii. 7, xv'ii. 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 tlie
empei'or, the extent of the empire, and the ud-

ROMAN EMPIRE

1051

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

I. When Augustus became sole ruler of tlie Ro-
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 says
that he was neither king nor diet;itor, hut " 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 ujwn Augustus, so that
while otheis 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 lested, viz. the support of the
army (Merivale, Eoman 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, com]>.
Ovid, Fasti, i. 609). Tiberius is called by impli-
cation f)yefji.(iiiv 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 shi'unk from speaking of
their ruler under his milifcu-y title (see Merivale.
Rom. Empire, iii. 452, and note) or any other
avowedly despotic appellation. The use of the word.
o Kvpios, dominus, " my lord," in Acts xxv. 26,
marks the progress of Roman servility between
the time of Augustus and Nero. Augustus and
Tiberius lefused this title. Caligula first bore it
(see Alford's note in I. c. ; Ovid, Fast. ii. 142).
The term ^aa-tXevs, " kiflg," 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 mihtary violence were not wanting in
this earlier period (comp. Wenclc'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 Domitian show
that an emperor might shed the noblest blood with
impunity, so long as he abstained from otl'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-
skiits of barbarism " (Cic. De Rep. ii. 4) has been
well applied to the Roman dominions betbre the
conquests of Pompey and Caesar (Merivale, Rom.
Empire, iv. 409). The Roman Empire was still
confined to a narrow strip encircling the ]\Iedit«r-
ranean Sea. Pompey added Asia Minor and Syria.
Caesar added Gaul. The generals of Augustus over-

1052

ROMAN EMl'IEE

ran the N.W. portion of Spain and the country
between the Alps and the Danube. The boundaries
of the Empire were now, the Atlantic on the \V.,
the Euphrates on the E., 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 inipoi-tance were those of Britain by
Claudius and of Dacia by Trajan. The only inde-
pendent powers of impoitance weie 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
Kianz de Champagny adopts the same number for
the reign of Nero {Les Cesars, ii. 428j. All these
estimates are confessedly somewhat uncertain and
coujectuiul.

This large population was controlled in the time
of Tiberius by an army of 25 legions, exclusive of
the praetorian guards and other cohoiis 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 S40,000 men.
The praetorian guaids 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 ; comp. Merivale, iii. 534). The
legion, iis 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 attiiched 'Conybe<ire 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 pui-pose. Sometimes, however, as we
have seen, petty sovereigns weie 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
dlflerences too in the political condition of cities
within the provinces. Some were free cities, i. e.
were governed by their 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-
tiirchs" and "Demos" at Thessalonica, Acts xvii.
5-8. The " town-clerk " and the assembly at
Ephcsus, Acts six. 35, .".9 (C. and II. Life of St.
Paul, i. 357, ii. 79). Occasionally, but rarely, free
cities were exempted from taxation. Other cities
were "Colonies," i. e. communities of Roman citi-
zens transplanted, like garrisons of the imperial
city, into a foreign land. Such was Philippi (Acts
xvi. 12). Such too were Cminth, Troas, the Pisi-
dian Antioch. The inhabit^ints were for the most
part Romans (Acts xvi. 21), and their magistrates
delighted in the Roman title of Praetor {arpa-
rriy6s), and in the attendance of lictors (l>a05ovxoi),
Acts xvi. 35. (C. and H. i. 315.)

Augustus divided the provinces into two classes,
(1.) Imperial, (2.) Senatorial ; retaining in his own

ROMAN EMPIRE

hands, for obvious reasons, those provinces where
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, Syiia, Phoenicia,
Cilicia, Cyprus, and Aegypt. The Senatorial pro-
vinces were Africa. Numidia, Asia, Achaea and
Epirus, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Sicily, Crete and Gy-
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 (Acts xiii. 7, xviii. 12, xix. 38). [Cyprus.]
For the governor of an Imperial province, properly
styled " LegatusCacsaris" (ripeff/SeuTTJj), the word
'HyefjLtliv (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 fi'om
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 Att. 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; Flut.
Aeniil. Paid. 38), except in extraordinary emer-
gencies. The main pait of the Roman revenue was
now drawn from the provinces by a direct tax
{ktivctos, <p6pos. 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 inchrect taxes too (teAtj, vecti-
galia, Matt. xvii. 25 ; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 449)
appear to have been very 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 uecessit}' of a careful valuation of the property
of the wliole empire, which appears to have been
made more than once in his reign. [Cexsus.] For
the historical difficulty about the taxing in Luke
ii. 1, see Cvrenius. 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 theii' command was prolonged
(Jos. Ant. xviii. 6, §5). But the old mode of
levying the taxes seems to have been continued.
The comi)aiiies who farmed the taxes, consisting
generally of knights, paid a ceiiain sum into the
Roman tieasuiy, and proceeded to wring what
they could from the provincials, often with the
connivance and support of the provincial governor.
The work w;is done chiefly by underlings of the
lowe-st class (portitores). These aie the publicans
of the N. T.

ROMAN EMPIRE

On the whole it seems doubtful whether the
wrongs of the provinces can have 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 replenishing
their treasury. The stories related even of the
reign of Augustus show how slight were the checks
on the tyranny of provincial governoi-s. See the story
of Licinus in Gaul {Diet, of Gr. <f- Som. Biog. sub
voce), and that of the Dalmatian chief (Dion, Iv.).
The sufferings of St. Paul, protected as he was to a
certain extent by his Roman citizenship, show plainly
how little a provincial had to hope from the 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
e.\pression that the " fulness of time had come "
(Gal. iv. 4). The general peace within the limits
of the Empire, the formation of milibiry roads, the
suppression of piracy, the march of the legions, the
viivages 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-
theito unknown for the spread of a world-wide
reliijion. 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 a deep
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 luider 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, Led.
V. 194). Notwithstanding the outward appearance
of peace, unity, and reviving prosperity, the general
condition of the people must have been one of gi'eat
misery. To say nothing of the fact that probably
one-half of the population consisted of slaves, the
great inequality 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 think favourably of the happiness of the world
in the famous Augustan age. We must remember
that " there were no public hospitals, no institu-

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1053

tions tor 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
promote the instruction of the lower classes, no-
thing to mitigate the miseries of domestic slavery.
Charity and general philanthropy were so little
regarded as duties, that it re<juires a very extensive
acquaintance with the literature of the times to
find any allusion to them" (Arnold's Later Eorivm
Comioonii-ealth, ii. 398). If we add to this that
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 (juote an elo-
quent description of its " slow, imperceptible, con-
tinuous aggression on the heathenism of the Roman
Empire."

" Christianity was gi-adually withdrawing some
of all orders, even slaves, out of the vices, the igno-
rance, the miseiy 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 woni-out supersti-
tions of heathenism ; gently establishino; in the soul
of man the sense of immortality, till it became a
natural and inextinguishable part of his moral
being" (Milman's Latin Christianit//, 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 Danikl. 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.]

ROMANS, THE EPISTLE TO THE.

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.) Gains, 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 natne was very common. (3.)' Erastus,
here designated " the treasurer of the city " (oIko-
v6fMos, xvi. 23, E. V. " chamberlain") is elsewhere
mentioned in connexion with Corinth (2 Tim. iv.
20 ; see also Acts xix. 22). Secondly. Having thus
detennined the place of writing to be Corinth, we
have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit lecorded
in Acts XX. 3, during the winter and spring following
the Apostle's long residence at Epliesus, 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. £2, xxiv. 17, and also 1 Cor. xvi. 4 ; 2 Cor. viii.

1054 ROMAXS, EPISTLE TO THE

1, 2, ix. 1 ff., shows that he was so engaged at this
p<niod of his life. (See Paley's Horae Paulinae, eh.
ii. §1.) Moreover, in this Epistle he declares his
intention of visiting the liomans after he has heen at
Jeiusalem (xv. 23-25), and that such was his de-
sign at this particular time appeal's 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 lemained thiee months in
Greece (Acts xx. 3). When he left, the sea was
already a^vigable, for he was on the point of sailing
for Jeiusalem when he was obliged to change his
plans. On the other hand, it cannot have been
late in the spring, beamse 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
liomans was written. According to the most pro-
bable system of chronology, adopted by Anger and
Wieseler, this would be the year B.C. .58.

2. The Epistle to the Romans is thus placed in
chronoloijical connexion with the Epistles to the
Galalians and Corinthians, which ajipear to have
been written within the twelve months preceding.
The First I'-pistle to the Corinthians was wi'itten
l)efore 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 Epistles to the Corinthians, though the
<late of the Galatian Epistle is not absolutely certain.
[Galatians, Eplsti.e to the.] We shall have
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 gi-eater resemblance than can be traced to
any othei- 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 Apostel) 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 jouniey — 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
(iaiatians in the Journal of Class, and Sacr. Phil.,
iii. p. 289.

'.\. The occasion which prompted this Epistle,
and the circumst'inccs attencling its. willing, were
as follows. St. Paul had long purposed visiting
Home, and still letained this purpose, wishing also
to extend his journey to Spain (i. 9-13, xv. 22-29).
Eor the time however, he was prevented fiom 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 Uoiiians,
to supj)ly the lack of his personal teaching. Phoebe,
a deaconess of the neighbouring Church of Cenchreae,
was on the point of starting for Home (xvi. 1, 2),
and probably conveyed the letter. The body of tlie
Ejiistle was written at the Apostle's dictation by
Tcjtius (xvi. 22); but perhaps we may in!er from

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

the abruptness of the final doxology, that it was
added by the Apostle himself, more especially as we
crather 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 involved
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 veiy
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 {xapifffxa) 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 i-eached Rome
during the lifetime of our Lord, is evidently a fiction
for the pur]ioses 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
ceitain believers resident in Rome— Andronicus and
Junia (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 ]):\ssage, rendered
somewhat ambiguous by the position of the I'elative
pronouns. It may be that some of those Romans,
" both Jews and proselytes," present on the day ot
Pentecost {oi iin.Syifxovi'Tfs 'VoyfJ-oioi, 'lov5a7oi re
Kal Trpo(TT}\vToi, Acts ii. ]U), carried Ijuck the
earliest tidings of the new docti-ine, 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
Palestine by the exigencies of commerce, in which they
became more and more engrossed, as their national
hojies declined, and by the custom of re))airing regu-
larly to their sacred festivals at Jerusalem. Again,
the imperial edicts alternately banishing and recall-
ing the Jews (compare e. ij. in the case of Claudius,
Joseph. AHt.\\\. 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 Aquila
and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 2 ; see Paley, Hor, Paul, c
ii. §2), probably represents a numeious class through
whose means the ojiinions 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 Apollos
at Corinth (Acts xviii. 25), or the disciples at
Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-3), As time advanced and

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

better instructed teachers arriveil, tlie clouds would
jTiadually 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,
lieathen 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 nAt arises as to the composition
of t/io Bom'm Church, at the time when St. Paul
wrote. Did the Apostle address a Jewish or a
Centile community, or, if the two elements were
combined, was one or other predominant so as to
give a character to the whole Church? Either
extreme 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
diOiculty 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
ap[)lies to a portion at least of those into whose
liiuids the letter would fall. The constant apjjcals
to the authoi'ity 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 speaking 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 Jewisl; name. But this fact is not worth
the stress apparently laid on it by Mr. Jowett (ii.
p. 27). For Aquila and Friscilla (ver. 3) were
.lews (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 ap]ilied to
Herodion (ver. 11). These persons then must have
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. It 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-
]iparsthat a very large fraction of the Christian be-
lievers mentioned in these salutations were Jews,

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1055

even supposing that the others, beaiing Greek and
Latin names, of whom we know nothing, were
heathens.

Nor does the existence of a large Jewish element
in the Roman Church present any difficulty. The
captives carried to Rome by Pompcius 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 quai'ter beyond the Tiber, and allowed them
the free exercise of their religion (Philo, Lej.Aid
Caium, 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.
ii. 1, 1.56) 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 spi'ead of the
infection through Roman society, are well known.

On the other han<l, 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 professedl)' 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 vitip avTu>v, not vizip tov 'Iff-
paif]K as in the Fteceived Text). Compare also xi. 23,
25, ancl 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-
I'adox 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 MWmtm, 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, Friscilla, Aquila, and Junia
(or Junias), were certainly Jews ; and the same is
true of Rufus, if, as is not improbable, he is
the same 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. <?. Ampliatus) and
Urbanus, of whom nothing is known, but their
names are of late growth, and certainly do not point
to an old Roman stock. It was therefore from tlie
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 tlie whole
people of Rome. They wove the most busy and

1056 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

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. 60-80, vi.
184; Tac. de Oral. 29). They complain that the
national character is undermined, that the whole
city has become Greel?. 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 themselves 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 wliatever 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 Peshito, that this letter was written
"in the Latin tongue," (D^NDTl). Every line in
the Epistle bespeaks an original.

When we enquire into the probable rank and
station of the Roman believers, an analvsis of the
names in the list of salutations again gives an ap-
proximate answer. Tliese 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 amiy, among the slaves and
freedmen 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. Paul as
presiding at the same time over the Church at
Rome (Dionys. Cor. ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 ; Iren.
iii. 3). Possibly also the discrepancies in the lists
of the early bishops of Rome may find a solution
(Pearson, Minor T/ieol. Works, ii. 449; Bunsen,
Hippohitus, i. p. 44), in the joint Episcopate of
Lirus and Cletiis, the one ruling over the Jewish, the
other over the Gentile congregation of the metropolis. !
If this conjecture be accepted, it is an im])ortaut testi- I
mony to the view here maintained, though we 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 different
and opposing forms. The Gospel had here to contend
notspecially with Judaism norspecially with heathen-
ism, but witli both together. It was therefore the bu-
siness of the Christian Te;icher to reconcile the opposing
difficulties and to hold out a meeting point in the
Gospel. This is exactly what St. Paul does in the

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

Epistle to the Romans, and what fi-om 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 circuAstances, to derange
a general and svstematic 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 difl^ers widely from the Epistles to the Corinthians
and Galatians, with which as being written about
me 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 part 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 teides, 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 laliour, 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 of
the fi-agmentary 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 foi-m.
Thus on the one hand his treatment of the Mosaic
law points to tlie ditficulties he encountered in
dealing with the Galatian Church, while on the
other his cautions against antinomian excesses (Rom.
vi. 15, &c.), and his precepts against giving offence
in the matter of meats and the observance of days
(Rom. xiv.), remind us of the errors which he had
to correct in his Corinthian converts. (Compare

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

1 Cor. vi. 12 rt'., and I Cor. viii. 1 11'.) Those in-
junctions tiien which seem at first sight special,
appear not to be directed against any actual known
failings in the Roman Church, but to be suggested
bv the possibility of" those irregularities occurring in
Rome which he had alieaily 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. 25-27J. 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 gi'ound
of style, advanced by Rei!:he, are met and refuted
by Fritzsche (Rom. vol. i. p. xxrv.). Baur goes
still farthei-, and rejects the two last chapters ; but
such an inference falls without the range of sober
criticism. The phenomena of the JISS. 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 foi'm 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 eV 'Piofxp
(i. 7), and to7s eV 'Pufj.r] (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 confinned by the parallel case
of the opening of the Ephesian Epistle, in which
there is very high authority for omitting the words
eV 'E(pea-ij>, 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, st^md-
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 and Gentile. The different posi-
tions of the two as regards their past and ])resent
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
fiiith is the key which tmlocks 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 bible of its
contents : —

Salutation (i. 1-7). The Apostle at the outset
strikes the keynote of the Epistle in the expressions
" called as an apostle," " called as saints." Divine
grace is eveiy thing, human merit nothing.
VOL. II.

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1057

I. Feisonal explanations. Purposed visit to Rome
(i. 8-15).

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 Uikcn up in esta-
blishing 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.

1-8).
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 tliis 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 Adara
(v. 12-19).

ance.
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. 6-13).
And the absolute purpose of God in so
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 menns
of gathering in the Gentiles, and through
the Gentiles they themselves will ulti-
mately be brought to Christ (xi. 1-36).

111. Practical exhortations (xii. 1-xv. 13).
((() To holiness of life and to charity in gene-
ral, the duty of obedience to rulers being
inculciited by the way (xii. 1-xiii. 14).
(6) And more particularly against giving
oflence to weaker brethren (xiv. 1-xv. 13).
3 Y

1058 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

IV. Personal matters.

(a) The Apostle's motive in writint^ the letter,
and his intention of visiting the Itomans

(xv. u-as).

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

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

'I'he reader may be refen-ed especially to the
introductions of Olshausen, Tholuck, and Jowett,
for suggestive remarks i-elating to the scope and
purport of the Epistle to the iiomans.

lO. Internal evidence is so strongly in favour of
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans that
it has never been seriously questioned. Even the
sweeping criticism of Baur did not go beyond con-
demning the two last chapters as spurious. But
while the Epistle bears in itself the strongest
proofs of its Pauline autiiorship, the external testi-
mony in its favour is not inconsiderable.

The reference to Rom. ii. 4 in 2 Pet. iii. 15 is
indeed more than doubtful. In the Epistle of
St. James again (ii. 14), there is an allusion to
perversions of St. Paul's language and doctiine
which has several points of contact with the Epistle
to the Romans, but this may perhaps be explained
by the oral ratlier than the written teaching of the
Apostle, as tlie dates seem to require. It is not
the practice of the Apostolic fathers to cite the
N. T. writei-s by name, but marked passages from
the Romans are found embedded in the EpLstles 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, 0)1 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. liom. i. 20-20), by Basilides
{ib. p. 238, cf. Rom. viii. 19, 22, and v. 13, 14),
by Valentinus {ib. p. 19.5, 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
(Euseb. H. E. v. 1, cf. Rom. viii. 18), and by
Athenagoras (p. 13, cf. Rom. xii. 1 ; p. 37, cf. Rom.
i. 24) and Thcophilus of Antioch {Ad Antol. p. 79,
cf. Rom. ii. 6 foil.; p. 12(5, cf. Rom. xiii. 7, 8) ; and
is quoted frequently and by name by Irenaeus, Ter-
tullian, and Clement of'Alexandria (sec Kirchhofer,
Qnellcn, p. 198, and esp. VVestcott, On the Canon,
pa.ssim j.

ROME

11. The Commentaries on this Epistle are very
numerous, as might be expected from its import-
ance. Of the many patristic expositions only a h\v
are now extant. The work of Oiigen is preserved
entire only in a loose Latin translation of Rufinus
{Orig. ed. do la line, iv. 458), but some fragments
of the original are found in the Philocalia, and moi e
in Cramer's Catemx. The commentary on St. Paul's
Epistles printed among the works of St. Ambrose
(ed. Bon. ii. Appx. p. 21), and hence beaiing the
name Ambiosiaster, 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), by
Peiagius (printed among Jerome's works, ed. Vai-
larsi, xi. Pt. 3, p. 135), byPrimasius {Magn. Bibl.
Vet. Patr. vi. Pt. 2, p. '30), and by Theodoret (ed.
Schulze, iii. p. 1). Aug-ustine commenced a work,
but broke off at i. 4 : it bears the name Inchoata
Expositio Epistolae ad Bom. (ed. Ben. iii. p. 925).
Later he wrote Expositio q'l/xrundam Projxsitionum,
Epistolae ad Rom., also e.xtant (ed. Ben. iii. p. 903).
To these should be added the later Catena of Oecu-
menius (10th eeut.) and the notes of Theophylact
(1 1th cent.), the former containing valuable extracts
from Photius. Portions of a commentary of Cyinl
of Alexandria were published by Mai {Nov. Putr.
Bibl. iii. p. 1). The Catena edited by Cramer
(1844) compi-ises 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 fiom
Apollinarius, Theodorus of JMopsuestia, Severianus,
Gennadius, Photius, and others. There aie also the
Greek Scholia, edited by Matthai, in his large Greek
Test. (Riga, 1782), fi-om 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
few of the most important. The dogmatic value
of this Epistle naturally atti'acted the early i-e-
formers. Melancthon wrote several expositions of it
(Walch, Bibl. Theol. iv. 679). The Commentary
of Calvin on the Romans is considered the ablest
part of his able work. Among Roman Catholic
writers, the older works of Estius and Corn, a
Lapide deserve to be mentioned. Of foreign anno-
tators of a more recent date, besides the ireneral
commentaries of Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, and
Meyer (3rd ed. 1859), which are highly valuable
aids to the study of this Epistle, we may single out
the special works of Riickert (2nd ed. 1839),
Reiche (1834), Fritzsche (183(5-43), and Tholuck
(5th ed. 1856). An elaborate commentary has also
been published lately by Van Hengel. Among
English writers, besides the editions of the whole
of the New Testament by Alford (4th ed. 1861)
and Woidsworth (new ed. 1861), the most im-
portant annotations on the Epistle to the Romans
are those of Stuart (6th ed. 1857), Jowett (2nd
ed.^ 1859), and Vaughan (2nd ed. 1801). Further
information on the subject of the literature of the
Epistle to the Romans may be found in the intro-
ductions of Reiche and Tholuck. [J. B. L.]

ROME {"Pdifi-q, Etlm. and Adj. 'Vcn^alos, 'Pw-
M^/^fij in the phrase jpdfxfiaTa 'Pcofiaiica, Luke
xxiii. 38), the famous cajjital of the ancient world,
is situated on the Tiber at a distance of about 15
miles from its mouth. The " seven hilLs " (Rev. xvii.
9) which formed the nucleus of the ancient city
stand on the left bank. On the opposite side of the
river rises the far higher ridge of the Janiculum.

ROME

Here from very early times \v:is a fortress with a
suburb beneath it extendinf; to tlie river. Modei'n
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 Martins,
and on the opposite bank extending ovei- the low
ground beneath the Vatican to the N. of the ancient
Janiculum. A full account of" the history and
topograjjhy of the city is given elsewhere (^T)ict.
of (jr. a-nd Horn. Geogr. ii. 719). Here it will be
considered only in its relation to Bible history.

}iome is not mentioned in the Bible except in the
books of Maccabees and in three books of the N. T.,
viz. tlie Acts, the Epistle to the Komans, and the
'Jml Epistle to Timothy. For the notices of Rome
in the books of Macaibees 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 I'ompey's triumph, and m;uiy Jewish capti\'es
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 islanil of the Tiber, but across the Tiber
(Rliilo, Leg. ad Caium, p. 568, ed. Mangey).
Many of these Jews were made freedmen (Philo,
/. c). Julius Caesar showed them some kindness
(Joseph. Aiit. xiv. 10, §8 ; Suet. Caesar, 84).
They were favoured also by Augustus, and by
Tiberius during the latter part of his reign (Philo,
I. 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 trom Rome " (Acts
xviii. 2), on account of tumults connected, possibly,
with the ■ preaching of Christianity at Rome (Snet.
Claud. 25, " Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue
tumultuantes Roma expulit "). This banishment
cannot have been of long duration, tor we iind
Jews residing at Rome apparently in considerable
numbers at the time of St. Paul's visit (Acts xxviii.
17). It is chietiy in connexion with St. Paul's
history that Rome comes before ns 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 outei' wall. It had long outgrown the old
Servian wall (Dionys. Hal. Ant. Horn. iv. 13 ; ap.
Merivale, Eoin. 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, ii. 371 ; Merivale, Eom.
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, viz. 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 of
marble" (Suet. Aug. 28). For the improvemenfci
eflected by him, see Diet, of Gr. and Sam. Geogr.
ii. 740, and Niebuhr's Lectures on Bom. Hist.
ii. 177. Some parts of the city, especially the

ROME

1059

Forum and Campus Marti us, must now have pre-
sented a magnificent appearance, but many of the
principal buildings which attract the attention of
modern travellers in ancient Rome were not yet
built. The stieets were generally narrow and
winding, flanked by densely crowded lodging-houses
(insulae) of enormous height. Augustus found it
necessary to limit their height to 70 feet (Strab.
V. 235). St. Paul's first visit to Rome took place
before the Neronian conflagration, but even after
the restoration of the city, which followed upon
that event, many of the old evils continued (Tac.
Hist. iii. 71 ; Juv. Sat. iii. 193, 269). The popula-
tion of the city ha.s been variously estimated : at half
a million (by Dureau de la Malle, i. 403 and Meri-
vale, Eom. Empire, iv. 525), at two millions and
upwards (Hoeck, Eomische Goschichte, \. ii. 131 ;
C. and H. Life of St. Paul, ii. 376 ; Diet, of Geogr.
ii. 746), even at eight millions (Lipsius, De Mag-
nitudine Eom., quoted in Diet, of Geogr.'). Pro-
bably Gibbon's estimate of one million two hundred
thousand is nearest to the truth (Milman's note on
Gibbon, ch. xxxi. vol. iii. p. 120). One half of the
population consisted, in all probability, of slaves.
The larger part of the remainder consisted of pauper
citizens supported in idleness by the miserable sys-
tem of public gratuities. There appears to have
been no middle class and no free industrial popu-
lation. Side by side with the wretched clashes 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-
ing to Roman custom (Senec. Ep. v. ; Acts sii. 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, alter some time
spent in freedom, was a second time imprisoned at
Rome (for proofs, see C. and H. Life of St. Paid,
ch. xx-rii., and Alfbrd, 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 befo're 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 irpatTcl>i)tov, Phil. i. 13).
This may mean either the great camp of the Prae-
torian guards which Tiberius established outside
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 used tc
designate the emperor's palace, though it is used
for the official residence of a Roman governor (Jehu

3 Y 2

1060

ROME

xviii. 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-
latine.

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 —
(] .) The Mamertine pnson or Tullianum, built by
Ancus Wartius near the forum (Liv. i. 33), de-
scribed by Sallust {Cat. 55). It still exists beneath
the church of S. Giuseppe dei Falcgnami. 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 Kome. 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 {Koifi-qT'^ipia)
(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 e.xpressing 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 j 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 niflammable 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. ai/Tt (Matt. ii. 22).

2. xwpeti' (Mark ii. 2).

3. TOTTos (Luke ii. 7, xiv. 22; 1 Cor. xiv. Hi).

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

printed in italics).

5. &idSoxoi ((■. e. a successoi-, Acts xxiv. 27).

EOOM

commonly from 8 to 10 feet in height, and from 4
to 6 in width, and e.\tending 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
Cluent. 13), and the account of the concealment
offered to Nero befbi-e 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,
sv. 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
.Tews or Gentiles, see C. and H., Life of St. Paid,
ii. 157 ; Alford's Pi-oleg. ; and especially Prof.
Jowett's Epistles of St. Paid 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 bi.shops of Rome.

Rome seems to be described under the name of
Babylon in Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii. 2,
21 ; and again, as tlie city of the seven hills (Rev.
xvii. 9, cf. .xii. 3, xiii. 1). See too, for the interpre-
tation of the mystical number 666 in Rev. xiii. 18,
Alford's note, I. c.

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

EOOF. [House.]

EOOM. 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
irpuTOKKiffia (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 a chamber,

6. irpaiTOKKLa-ia (cliief, highest, uppermost room. See

aliove.)

7. aravaioi/ (an upper room, Maik xiv. 15, Luke

xxii. 2).

8. TO vneppuov (the upper room. Acts L 13).

EOSE

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 translatoi-s to Ka64Spa, which
.seems to mean some liind of official chair. In Lulie
xiv. 9, 10, they liave rendered tSttos by both
" place " and " room."

The Upper Roo.m of the Last Supper is noticed
under its own head. [See House, Vol. I. p.
838.] [G.]

ROSE (TV'^^^, chabatstseldh: Kpivov,&v6os;
Aq. Ka\u| : Jios, Uliuni) occurs twice only, viz.
in Cant. ii. 1, " I am the Rose of Sharon ," and' in
Is. x.xxv. 1, " the desert shall rejoice and blossom
as the Rose." There is much difl'erence of opinion
as to what particular flower is here denoted. Tre-
mellius and Diodati, with some of the Kabbins,
believe the rose is intended, but there seems to be
no foundation for such a translation. Celsius
{Hieroh. i. 488) has argued in favour of the Nar-
cissus {Polyanthus narcissus). This rendering is
supported by the T.argum ou Cant. ii. 1, where
Ckabatstscktk is explaiued by narko^ (D1p"13). This
word, says Royle (Kitto's'Cyc. art. " Chabiuze-
leth"), is " the same as the Persian nargus, the

Arabic fja^jj, 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 autumnak). It is well worthy of remark
that the Syriac translator of Is. xxxv. 1 explains
chabatstsclctli by chamtsalyotho,^ which is evidently
the same word, m and 6 being interchanged. This
Syriac word, according to Michaelis {Sup^^l. p. 659),
Gesenius, and Rosenmiiller {Bib. Bot. p. 142), de-
notes the Colchicum aiitumnalc. The Hebrew word
}-)oints etymologically to some bulbous plant; it
appeai-s to us more probable that the narcissus is in-
tended than the crocus, the formei- plant being long
celebrated for its fragrance, while the other has no
odorous qualities to recommend it. Again, as the
chabatstscleth is associated with the lily in Cant. I.e.,
it seems probable that Solomon is speaking of two
jilants which blossomed about the same time. The
narcissus and the lily {Lilium candidum) would be
in blossom together in the early spring, while the
Colchicum is an autumn plant. Thomson {The
Land and the Booh, pp. 112, .51.S) suggests the pos-
sibility of the Hebrew name being identical with the

Arabic Khubbaizy {'gj-y^j^ or jLl=L;, " the

mallow," which plant he saw' growing abun-
dantly on Sharon ; but this view can hardly be
maintained : the Hebrew teim is probably a quadri-
literal noun, with the harsh aspirate prefixed, and
the prominent notion implied in it is hetsel, " a
bulb," and has therefore no connexion with the
above-named Arabic word. Chateaubriand {Iti-
ne'raire, ii. p. 130) mentions the narcissus as grow-
ing in the plain of Sharon ; and Strand {Flor.
I'alacst. No. 177) names it as a plant of Palestine,
on the authonty of Itauwolf and Hasseli^uist ; see
also Kitto's Phys. Hist, of Palest, p. 21tj. Hiller
{Hierophyt. ii. 30) thinks the cAa6afc<se/e^/i denotes
some species of asphodel {Asphodehts) ; but the

» J>Ls^. Vl^

EOSH

1061

fingerlike roots of this genus of plants do not well
accord with the " bulb" root implied in the original
word.

Though the Piose is apparently not mentioned in
the Hebrew Bible, it is referred to in Ecclus. xxiv.
14, where it is s;iid of Wi.sdom that she is exalted
" as a rose-plant {ais <pvTa fiSSov) in Jericho "
fcomp. also ch. 1. 8; xxxix. 13; Wisd. ii. 8).
Roses are greatly pi'ized in the E:ist, more espe-
cially for the sake of the rose-water, which is in
much request (see Hasselquist, Trav. p. 248). Dr.
Hooker obsei-ved the following wild roses in Syria: —
Rosa eglanteria (L.), R. seinpervirens (L.), R.
Henkeliana, R. Phoenicia (Boiss.), R. seriacea,
R. angiistifolia, and R. Libanotica. Some of these
are doubtful species. R. centifolia and damascena
are cultivated eveiywhere. The so-called " Rose
of Jericho" is no rose at all, but the Anastatica
Hierochuntina, a cruciferous plant, not uncommon
on sandy soil in Palestine and Egypt. [W. H.]

EOSH (JJ'N"): 'Vus: Ros). In the genealogy
of Gen. xlvi. 21, Rosh is reckoned among the sons
of 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. x,\vi. 38). See Burringtou's Genealogies,
i. 281.

EOSH (K'{<-| : 'Pais, Ez. xxxviii. 2, 3, x.xxix. 1 :

translated by the Vulg. capitis, and by the A. V.
" chief," as if C^'^{~l, " 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 K'Ji'J, the teiTu 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 'Vus, is intended the trilje on the north of
the Taurus, so called from their neighbourhood to
the Rha, or Volga, and that in this name and tn'be
we have the first trace of the Rcss or Rcssian
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
liass or Ross." He considers that JMohammed had
actually the passage of Ezekiel m view, and that
"Asshabir" corresponds to Nasi, the "prince"
of the A. v., and apxovTa of the LXX. (Sur les
Origines Russes, Petersbui-g, 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 Passes, in Judith ii. 23 — this time
in the ancient Latin, and possibly also in the
Syriac 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 empire
is doubly interesting fiom its being a solitary
instaiice. No other name of anv modern nation

10(32

EOSIN

occurs in the Scriptures, and the obliteration of it
by the A. V. is one of tlie many remarliable 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. (vd<p9a, naphtha), as well as
the Peshito-Syriac. In the Song of the Three
Children (23), the seiTants 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 pioduct of Baby-
lonia, similar in appearance to liquid bitumen, and
having a remarkable affinity to fire. To this
natural product (known also as Persian najihtha,
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 diametei-, 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 tiie 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 mart 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 anil 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, puttino-
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 Ui'<

(naft). 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 lamj)s instead of
oil. The latter were of liquid sulphur. [W. A. VV.J

EUBIES {Q''''iB,pe)it>/ijiin ; D"'3''3S), jaenemm .

\l6ot, A. TToXvTfXels : cunctaa opes, cuncta pre-
tiosisshna, gemmae, de ultimis finibus, ehor anti-
quum), 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 Chald. Tl (Esth. i. 6), which the A. V. renders
" white," and which seems to be identical with the Arab.

dun; "pearls;" Xvi- dui'^aU, "a pravl," is by

V-

EUFUS

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

pares the Hebrew n3JS with the Arab. ..jOj " a
branch." Gesenius {Thcs. s. v.) defends this argu-
ment. Bochart {Hieroz. iii. 601) contends that
the Hebrew teim denotes pearls, and explains the
"ruddiness" alluded to above, by supposing that
the original word (•ID'IN) signifies merely " bright

in colour," or " colour of a reddish tinge." This
opinion is supported by Rosonmiiller {Schol. in
Thren.~), and others, but opposed by Blaurer {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 tlaurer's explanation, who rel'ers
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 {Trriyavov : ritta) occurs only in Luke xi.
42 : " Woe unto you, Pharisees ! for ye tithe mint
and rue and all manner of herbs." The rue heie
spoken of is doubtless the common Huta 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 Hasselqnist on Mount
Tabor, pioscorides (iii. 45) describes two kinds
of irrtyavov, viz. w. opetvSv and ir. K7}iT€vr6v,
which denote the Ruta montana and Ii. graveoletis
respectively. Rue was in great repute amongst the
ancients, both as a condiment and as a medicine
(Pliny, N. II. xix. 8 ; Columell. E. Bus. xii. 7,
§5 ; Dioscorides, I. c). The Talmud enumerates
rue amongst kitchen-herbs {Shebiith, ch. ix. §1),
and legards 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 ('PoC<|)os : liiifi(s) is mentioned in
Mark xv. 21, along with Alexander, as a son of
Simon the Cyrenean, whom the .lews 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 sous, 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 ''
(e/cAe/crbj/ iv Kvploi), and whose mother he gi'ace-
f'ully 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

some understood to mean " mother of pearl," or the kind
of alabaster called in German Perlenmutterstein. The
LXX. has TrCvi'ii'O'; Aiflos. See Gesenius, and Winer (Bibl.
Ilcalw. i. 71).

RUHAMAH

■with the one to whom Jlark refers ; and in that
case, iis Mark wrote liis gospel in all jirobability
at Rome, it was natural that he shoulil describe
to his readers the father (who, since tlic mothei-
was at Rome wliile he apparently was not there,
may have died, or have come later to that city)
from his relationsliip to two w-oU-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 J'etri, botii Rufus and Alex-
ander appear as companions of Peter in Rome.
Assuming, then, that the same person is meant in
the two passages, we liave before us an interesting
gioup of believers — a father (for we can hardly
doubt that Simon became a Christian, if he was not
already such, at tlie time of the cruciti.xion), a
mother, and two brothers, all in the same family.
Yet we are to bear in mind that Rufus was not an
uncommon name (Wetstein, Nov. Test., vol. i. ]>.
634) ; and possibly, therefore, Mark and Paul may
have had in view different individuals. [H. B. H.]

KUHA/MAH (nJOriT : ■riKei]jx4vrt : 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
compassion.

EU'MAH inOn : 'Povfid ; Ale.x. 'Puyua; Joseph.
'APovfia: liuma). 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
Judah.

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 Dnmah, one of the towns in the mountains
of Judali, near Hebron (Josh. xv. 52), not tar
distant ti-om Libnah, the native town of another
of Josiah's wives. The Hebrew D and R are so
similar a.s 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.]

EUSH. [Reed.]

RUST {Ppcicris, I6s : aerugo) occurs as the
translation of two different Greek words in JMatt.
vi. 19, 20, and in Jam. v. 3. In the former pas-
sage the word jBpaxns, which is joined with aris,
" moth," has by some been understood to denote
the larva of some moth injurious to corn, as the
Tinea granella (see Stainton, Insecta Britan. 'in.
30). The Hebrew E^=y (Is. 1. 9) is rendered
^pSiffis by Aquila ; comp. also Epist. Jerem. v. 12,
dirb lov Kol ^pwixdraiv, "from rust and moths"
(A. V. Bar. vi. 12). Scultetus {Exerc. Evantj. ii.
35, Crit. Sac. vi.) believes that the words (Ttjs
Kul fipSiffis are an hendiadys for <tt]s ^ptiicTKoiv.
The word can scarcely be taken to signify " rust,"
for which there is another term, I6s, which is used
by St. James to express rather the " tarnish" which
overspreads silver tlian " rust," by which name we
now understimd " oxide of iron." Bpwiriy is no

RUTH

1063

doubt intended to have reference in a general sense
to any corrupting and destroying substance that
may attack treasures of any kind which have long
been suflbicd to remain undisturbed. The allusion
of St. James is to tjie corroding nature of \6s on
metals. Scultetus correctly observes, '• aerugine
deformantur quidem, sed non corrumpuntur num-
mi ;" but though this is strictly speaking true, the
ancients, just as ourselves in common jiailance,
spoke of the corroding nature of "rust" (comp.
Hammond, Annvtat. in Matt. vi. 19). [\V, H.]

RUTH (n-n: 'VovB: probably for niy-),'' "a
friend," the feminine of lieu). A Moabitish woman,
the wife, first, of Mahlon, secondly of Boaz, and by
him mother of Obed, tlie ancestress of David and of
Christ, and one of the four women (Thamar, Rahab,
and Uiiah'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 land
of Judah, caused perhaps by the occupation of tlie
land by the Moabites under Eglou (as Ussher thinks
possible),'' induced Elimelech, a native of Bethlehem
Ephratah, to emigrate into the land of Moab, with
his wife Naomi, and his two sons, Blahlon 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 v^ill 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 tlie land, and to the religion of her
lost husband. They arrivetl 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 witli
the utmost kindness and respect, and sent her home
laden with corn which she had gleaned. Encouraged
by this incident, Naomi instructed Ruth to claim
at the hand of Boaz that he should perform tlie part
of her husband's near kinsman, by purchasing the
inheritance of Elimelech, imd 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 ovvn 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 storv of exquisite beauty and
simplicity ; as illustrating in her history the work-
ings of Divine Providence, and the truth of the

" Some tbink it is for DINn, " beauty."
^ Patrick suggests the famine in the days of Giilron
(Judg. vi. 3, 4).

1064

EYE

saying that " the eyes of the Lord are over the
righteous ;" and for the many interesting revela-
tions of ancient domestic and social customs which
are associated with her story, Kutli 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 (/)(? bono Vidnit.). 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 Paulani), As the
great-grandmother of King David, Ruth must have
flourished in the latter part of Eli's judgeship, or
the beginning of thai 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 ; Parlier's De Wette ; Ewaid,
Gcsch. i. 205, ill. 760 sqq.) [A. C. H.]

KYE (nDD3, cusscmeth: (ed, liXvpa: far,
vicia) 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-
scmeth; 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.
o2, and by the Syriac versions. Rye is for the
most 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-
rodotus (ii. 36) says the Egyptians " make bread
from spelt (arb oAupeW), which some call zea." See
also Pliny (^N.H. xviii. 8) and Dioscorides (ii. Ill),
who speaks of two kinds. The Cussemeth was cul-
tivated in 'Egypt ; it \-fAi not injured by the hail-
storm of the seventh plague (Ex. I. c), as it was
not grown up. This ceieal \v:rs also sown in Pales-
tine (Is. I.e.), on the margins or "headlands" of
the fields (171715) ; it was used for mixing with
wheat, barley, &c., for making bread (Ez. /. c).
The Arabic, Chirsanat, " spelt," is regarded by Ge-
senius as identical with the Hebrew word, m and n
being interchanged and »• inserted. "Spelt" {Tri-
ticuni spelta) is grown in some parts of the south
of Germany ; it differs but slightly from our com-
mon wheat {T. vulgare). There are three kinds of
spelt, viz. T. spelta, T. dicoccmn (Rice wheat), and
T. monococcum. [W. H.l

SAB'AOTH, THE LORD OF (K^pios <ra-
^adoO: Dominus Sahnotk). The name' is found in
the English Bible only twice (Rom. ix. 29 ; James
V. 4). It is probalily more familiar through its
occurrence in the Sanctus of theTe Deum" — "Holy,
Holy, Holy, Lord God of .Sabaoth." It is too often

" Can it be this phrase which determined the use of the
'I'e Dourn as a thanksgivinR for victories?

'' For Uie passages which follow, the writer is indebted

SABBATH

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 pqpularl}', but in some of our
most classical writers.** 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, gi'ant me that Sal>aoth's
sight."
And Bacon, Advancement of Learning, ii. 24: —
" . . . sacred and inspired Divinity, the Sabaoth and
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, Lvanhoe, i. ch. 11
(ist ed.): — "a week, aye the space between two
Saljaoths." 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
tscbdoth, "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
fighting-men,"^ and there can be no doubt that in
the mouth and the mind of an ancient Hebrew, Je-
hovah-isebdoih 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 worshippei-s 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 ibr
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 fomid 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 (2a(f)d7; Alex. :S,a(pdT : Phasphat).
1. The sons of Sabat are enumerated among the
sons of Solomon's servants who returned with Zoro-
babel (1 Esd. v. 34). There is no corresponding
name in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.

2. (2a;8aT : Sabath.) The month Sebat (1
Mace. xvi. 14).

SABATE'AS (2aj8aTa?os ; Alex. 5o/8;8aTaras :
Sabbatheus). SnABBETHAl (I Esd. ix. 48 ; comp.
Neh. viii. 7).

SAB'ATUS (2a/8a0oj : Zabdls). Zabad (1
Esd. ix. 28 ; comp. Ezr. x. 27).

SAB'BAN (SajSowos : Banni). Binnui 1
(1 Esd. viii. 63 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 33).

SABBATH (03^, "a day of rest," from
nity, " to cease to do," " to rest"). This is the
obvious and undoubted etymology. The resem-
blance of the word to VQCJ*, " seven," misled Lac-
tantius (^Tnst. iii. 14) and others; but it does not
seem more than accidental. Biihr (^Symbotih, ii.
533-4) does not reject the derivation from TO,^,

to the kindness of a friend.

"■ niKiy. See 1 Sam. xii. 9, 1 K. i. 19, andpassiwi in
Burgh's Concordance, p. 1058.

SABBATH

but traces that to 2')^, somewhat needlessly and
fancifully, as it ajiix-ars to us. Plutarch's associa-
tion of the word with the Bacchanalian cry <ro)3oi
may of course be dismissed at once. We have also
(Ex. xvi. 2'), and Lev. xxiii. 24) pn2L*', "f more
intense signifi«ition than n3C' ; also JlnSL" n3t^',
" a Sabbath of Sabbaths" (^Ex. xxxi. 15, and else-
where). The name Sabbath is thus applied to divei's
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 tirst 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 lecord 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
fii'st 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 <ind history among the chosen people.

Many of the Rtibbis 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 tirst 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
his 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 '' God ; for the mere heathen stranger was

SABBATH

1065

* Vide Patrick in foe, andSelden, Be Jure Nat. et Gent.
iii. 9.
b Vide Grotius in loc., who refers to Abeu-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 davs'
creation and the Divine rest on the seventh ; but
in the version of it which we find in Deuteronomy
a further reason is added — " and remember that
thou wast a stranger in the land of Egyjit, and
that the Lord thy God brought thee forth with a
luighty hand and by a stretched-out arm ; theiefore
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
file, a man was stoned for gathering sticks, on the
Sabbath. At a later period we fTnd 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 cai-rying 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. Fiom
Kehemiah 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
stoppage.

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 concernins: 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 resjjecting 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 real
scope and intention, must needs come into coUisiou
with these.

Before proceeding to any of the more curious

10G6

SABBATH

inference from it. Still moie fantastic proliibitions
were issued. It was unlawful to catch a ;iea on
the Sahbath, except the insect were actually hnrt-
incr 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 mainfciin the obli-
gation of a man's remaining throughout the Sabbath
in the postm'e wherein he chanced to be at its com-
mencement — n rule which most people would find
quite destructive of its character as a day of rest.
When minds were occupied with such micrology, as
this has been well cnlled, 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 ) est irom business
and labour.

That this peiTersion of the Sabbath had become
very geneial 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 hospitalitv, 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
fast.

Such are the inferences to which we are brought
by our Lord's words concerning, and works on, the
sacred day. We have already pi'otested 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 tiiat
such abolition was in prospect, still our Lord,
" made under the Law," would have violated no
part of it so long as it was Law. Nor can anything
be inferred on the other side from the Evangelist's
language (John v. 18). The phrase "He had
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-
specting the Sabbath. Similarly His own phiase,
" the priests profane the Sabbath and are blame-
less," can only be undei'stood to assert the lawfulness
of certain acts done for certain reasons on that day,
which, taken in themselves and without tho^e 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 eli'ect, that if
even a positive law might give place on occasion,
much more might an arbitraiy rule like that of the
Eabbis in the case in question.

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

■^ It is obvious from tlie whole scope of tlie cbapter judgment in case of neglect or violation of the Law, the
lliiit the words, "Ye shall keep my sabbaths," iu Lev. j Sabbatical j'ear would seem to be mainly referred to
xwi. 2, related to all these. In the ensuing threat of (ver. 1, 34, 35).

questions connected with the Sabbath, such as that
of its alleged piae-Mos;iic 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 foi- 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-
suing 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 i-ejecting,
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
other.

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

I. Nearly every one is aware that the Pharisaic
and Rabbinical schools invented man}' 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 Scribes and Pharisees " sittmg
in Moses' seat" (Matt, sxiii. 2, 3) had a right to
impose. How a geneial law is to be cari'ied out in
pai-ticular 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 vv'as
made for man, not man for the Sabbath, although it
may have proceeded from mistaking a temporary
enactment for a pennanent one. ilany, 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 ti-aflic carried on at the gates of
Jerusalem in his day. The harmless act of the
disciples iu the coru-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
being, 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. S, quoting Buxtorf.) This rule possibly
came into existence in consequence of our Lord's
appeal, and with a view to warding off the necessaiy

SABBATH

as though our Lord held Hiinself free from the
Law respecting it. It is to be taken in connexion
with the preceding words, •' the Sabbath was made
for man," <S:c., from which it is an inference, as is
shown by tlie adverb therefore; and tlie 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 made 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 Kabbiuical 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 Hebi-ew festivals. It is
not apparent, nor likely, that th§ whole of the
month was to be characterised by cessation from
labour ; but it certainly has a place in the Sab-
batical scale. Its gi'eat 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. '27-29j.

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

In Exodus xxui. 10, 11, we find 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
and bondmaid, nay, to the beast of the field, is
viewed here as their main end. " The stranorer,"
too, is comprehended in the benefit. Many, we

SABBATH

1067

suspect, while reading the Fourth Commandment,
merely regard him as subjected, together with his
host and family, to a piohibition. But if we con-
sider how continually the stranr/er is refeiTcd to in
the enactments of the Law, and that with a view
to his protection, the instances being onc-and-twenty
in number, we shall be led to regard his inclusion
in the Fourth Commandment rather as :\ benefit
conferred than a jirohibition imposed on him.

The same beneficent aim is still more apparent
in the fuller legislation respecting Ihe Sabbatical
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 gather in the
fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be a
sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath unto the
Lord; thou fhalt 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 thv
hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojournetli
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, di.iring
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
Year.]

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 sufhce 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 in 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
Law.

III. We must consider the actual enactments of
Scripture respecting the seventh day. However
homogeneous the ditferent Sabbatiail jieriods may
be, the weekly Sabbath is, as wo have said, the

1068

SABBATH

tonic or keynote. It alone is pi-escribed 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
the patriarchs, and commence our inquiry with
the institution of it in the wildeniess, 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 gives 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 ai'e left to seek
elsewhere for the particular application of the
general principle. That general principle in itself,
however, obviously embraces an abstinence from
worldly laboui- or occupation, and from the en-
forcing such on seiTants 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 Hebrew^s
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 confening 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 Sa)>
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 thinfe 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
ann : therefoi-e 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 fianchise, 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 compi'ehensive. 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 ;nid their following Sabbath.
Six days' work and the seventh day's rest contbrm
the 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 ciirly stage of spiiitual educ;i-
tion, was limited by so gross a coiicejition as that

SABBATH

of God working and then resting, as if 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 perfijct 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 degi'ee very good
when a six days' faithful labour has its issue in a
seventh of rest after God's pattern. It is most
important to remember that the Fourth Command-
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 obseiTance 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 deseci-ates the Sabbath openly
is like him who transgresses the whole Law ;"
while Maimonides winds up his discussion of the
subject thus : " He who breaks the Sabbath openly
is like the worshipjaer of the stars, and both are
like heathens in every i-espect."

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
T2iin and n3X??D, the former denoting servile
icorh, and the latter business (see Gesenius siib. 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 of
the general principle which we find in the Penta-
teuch was the prohibition to go out of the amip,
the command to every one to abide in his place
(Ex. xvi. 29) on the Sabbath-day. This is so ob-
viously connected with the gathering the manna,
that it seems most natural to regard it as a mere
temporai'y enactment for the circumstances of the
people in the wilderness. It was, however, after-
wards considered by the Hebrews a permanent law,
and applied, in the absence of the camp, to the city
in whicli a man might reside. To this was ap-
pended the dictum that a space of two thousand ells
on every side of a city belonged to it, and to go
that distance beyond the walls was permitted as
" a Sabbath-day's journey."

The reference of Isaiah to the Sabbath gives us

SABBATH

no details. Those in Jerpmi.ah and Nehemiali show
that carrying goods for sale, and buying such, were
eqtially profanations of the day.

There is no gi-ound foi' supposing that to engage
the enemy on tlie Sabbat li was considered unlawful
before the Captivity. On the contrary, there is
much force in the argument of ilichaelis (Laws
of Moses, iv. 196) to show that it was not. His
reasons are as follows: —

1. Tlie prohibited p3y, service, does not even
suggest the thought of war.

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

3. We read of long-protracted sieges, 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 religisus obsei-vance, 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 labour, 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."* ■ 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
at 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 icas no Sabbath in holy thinjs.
To this our Saviour appeals when He says that the

SABBATH

10t)9

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

priests in the Temple pi'ofaue the Sabliath and arc;
blameless.

Next, it is clear that individual olTerings were
not bleaches 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, wei-e 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-
vered 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 obser^-ance of the Sabbath. Sucli
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 veiy institution,
occupation with holy themes was regarded as an
essential part of the observance of the Sabbatli. It
would seem to have been an habitual practice to
repair to a prophet on that day, in order, it must
be presumed, to listen ib 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 the 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, His
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 fiom their abstinence fiom cookery on
that day, and perhaps, as Heylin conjectures, from
their postponement of their meals till the moie
solemn services of religion had been performed.
But there can be no doubt that it was kept as a
feast, and the phrase laxus Sabbatarius, which we
find in Sidonius Apollinaris (i. 2), and which has
been thought a proverbial one, illustrates the mode
in which they celebrated it in the early centuries
of our era. The following is Augustine's descrip-
tion of their piactice : — " Ecce hodiernus dies Sab-
bati est: hunc in praesenti tempore otio quodam
corporaliter languido et fluxo et luxurioso celebrant
Judaei. Vacant enim ad nugas, et cum Deus prae-

in its theological character ; we mean no less a person than
JI. Proudhon (Oe la Celibi-ation du Dinumche).

1070

SABBATH

ceperit Sabbntum, iili in his quae Deus prohibet
exercent Sabbatum. A^aeatio nostia a malis operi-
bus, Tacatio illoruni a bonis opei'ibus est. Melius
est eniin arare quam saltare. lUi ab opeve liono
vacant, ab opere uugatoiio non vacant " (Aug.
Enarr. in Fsalinos, Ps. xci. : see too Aug. De
decern Chordis, iii. 3; Chiysost. Homil I., De
Lazaro; and other references given by Bingham,
Eccl. Ant. lib. xx. 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. iS'ow, as we have more than once
liad 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 tlie J^abbath
which would always demand to be devoutly con-
sidered and intelligently answered — what is truly
I'est, what is that cessjition from labour which is
really Sabbatical ? And it is plain that, in appli-
<:atioii 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
jjossession 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
(jod, 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 every 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
Yeah ; Year of Jubilee.]

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
lavour 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 moi'e tlian 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 miglit have originated in
the Law of Moses, and yet jxissess an luiiversally
human scope, and an authority over all men and
through all time. Whichever way, therelbre, the
second of our questions is to be determined, we may
easily a]i])roach the first without anxiety.

The lirst and chief argument of those who
nwintain that the Sabbath was known before Moses,

SABBATH

is the reference to it in Gen. ii. 2, 3. This is con-
sideied to represent it as co-aeval with man, being
instituted at the Creation, or at least, as Lightfoot
views the matter, immediately iqion the Fall. Tliis
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
tlie 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 requu'e 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 lociil
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 sacredness of the seventh
day among tlie Egyptians, as recorded by Herodotus,
and the well-laiown 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 rememh'ir the
Sabbath-day, is appealed to as pi'oof 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 would 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
ancierit 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 sacredness 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 i-cfer only to its
previous institution in connexion with the gathering

SABBATH

of mannn, or may be but tlie natural precept to
keep in mind the rule about to be delivereil — 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 supjily of nianiui on tlie sixth
day (I'^x. xvi. 22) leads us to infer that the Sabbath
for which such extra supply was designed wa.s not
then known to them. iMoreover the language of
Ezekicl (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 w;\s known to the Israelites and others befoi-e
the Law of Moses. [Week.] There is pioba-
bility, though not more, in the opinion of Grotius,
tliat 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 wildejuess.

But to come to our second question, it by no
means follows, that even if the Sabbath were no
older than Moses, its sco])e and obligation are limited
to Israel, aad 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, beaiing 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, \iewed simply in itself, is a question
which will soon come before us, and one which
does not appear hard to settle. Meanwhile, we must
ijiquire into the case as exhibited by Scripture.

^nd here we are at once confronted with the
fact tliat the command to keep the Sabbath forms
part of the Decalogue. ^\ud that the Decalogue
l»ad a ranlj 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, Christians,
though whether in the letter, or in some large
.spiritual sense and scope, is a question which still
remains.

The phenomena respecting the Sabbath presented
by the New Testament are, 1st, the frequent le-
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 i-eferences to it in the four Gospels are,
it needs not be said, numerous enough. We have
ali-eady seen the high position which it took in the

SABBATH

1071

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 ])art of
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," ami
" My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," surelv
exhibit to us the Law of the Sabbath as human and
universah The former sets it forth as a privilege
and a blessing, and were we therefore to suppose it
absent from the ])rovisions 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 ox God does not exclude work — inas-
much as God opens His hand daily and filleth all
things living with plenteoasness — shows 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-breakei-s 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 fi'om 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 was a very general admission among the
early Fathers that Christians did not Sahbatize 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 once

1072

SABBATH

betrayed and dragged into notice if he was found
abstaining from labour of every kind, not on the
seventh but tlie 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
jiassage, 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 difl'erent at once. His celebrated
edict prohibitory of judicial proceedings on the
Lord's Day was probably dictated by a wish to
give the gi'eat Christian, festival as Inuch honour
as was enjoved by those of the heathen, rather
than by any reference to the Sabbath or tlie 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
was always used to denote the seventh, as that
of the Lord's Day to denote the first, day of the
week, which latter is nowhere habitually called
the Sabbath, so far as we are aware, except in
Scotland and by the English Puritans. But it
was sm-ely 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 of
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 first,
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 Sabbat)i in the
essential 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 be remembered, with the other festivals of
the Church), came to be perceived and jiroclaimed.

SABBATH

Attention has recently been called, in connexion
with our subject, to a circumstance which is im-
poiiant, the adoption by the Roman world of
the Egyptian week almost contemporaneously
with the founding of the Christian Church. Dion
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 refeiTcd 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 Kard-
iravais, and that in the words just quoted it is
changed into aa^jiaTicTfjiSs, 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 declaration " we which have believed
do enter into rest " — but a parenthesis to the eflect
that " to the people of God," the Christian com-
munity, there remaineth, there is left, a Sabhat-
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. « 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 moie 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, however, to this exposition are

« Accoi-iilng to this exposition tlie words of vcr. 10,
" for lie that liatli cnlcrcil, &c." are referred to Christ.

SABBATH

many and great, one being, that it has occurred
to so few amoug the great commentators who have
laboured ou the Ep. to the Hebrews. Chrysostom
(in loc.) 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 ejcception
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 sulficient reason tor the change of word
from KaTairavcTLS to (Ta^^arttTfi6i. 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
Baiitpton Lectures, has sketched and distinguished
eveiy 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. Be Sf/nag. — 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 dii Dimanche consideree sous les
rapports de V Hygiene publique, de la Morale, des
relations 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 lest,
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 airdinal numbers, ^v rrj /xi^ tSiv
ffaP^aTciu, means on the first day of the week.
The liabbis have the same phraseology, keeping,
however, the word Sabbath in the singular.

On the phrase of St. Luke, vi. 1, iv t^ cra^/SaT^
SevTepoirpcirca, see SABBATICAL Year.

This article should be read in connexion with that
on the Lord's Day.

Literature : — Critici Sacri, on E.xod. ; Heylin's
Hist, of the Sabbath ; Selden, I)e 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 Thoughts on the Sabbath ;
Wardlaw, On the Sabbath ; Maurice, On the Sab-
bath ; jMichaelis, Laws of Moses, arts, cxciv.-vi.,
clsviii. ; Oehler, in Herzog's Real-Encycl. " Sab-
bath ;" \Nh\w, Eealworterbuch, "Sabbath;" Biihr,
Symbolik des Mos. Cult. vol. h. bk. iv. ch. 11, §2 ;
Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary on
0. T. in Exod. XX. ; Proudhon, De la Celebration
du Dimanche ; and especiidly Dr. Hessey 's Sunday ;
the Bampton Lecture for 1860. [F. G.]

VOL. II.

SABBATH-DAY'S JOUENEY 1073

SABBATH-DAY'S JOUENEY fSajajSoTou
b^6s, Acts i. 12). On ocaision of a violation of
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" ou that day (Ex. xvi. 29). It seems
natural to look on this as a mere enactment
pro re nata, and having no bearing on any state
of ali'airs subsequent to the journey through the
wilderness and the daily giithering 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 the
supposition of such a prohibition being known to
the spokesman, Elisha almost certainly living — as
may be seen from the whole naiTative — much
more than a Sabbath Day's Journey from Shunem.
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 safely
argued fiom. In after times the precept m Ex.
xvi. was 'undoubtedly viewed as a permanent law.
But as some departure from a man's own plac6
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 appliciition 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 pastoial, and
must have secured to " the ox and the ass " the
rest to vfhich 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" (ilatt. 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 forms whereby such
journeying when necessary was sanctified ; nor would
assistance from those around be procurable.

The permitted distance seems to have been
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 wliere he dwelt, and thus
the amount of lawful 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

1074 SABBATHEUS

When a man was oliliged to go farther than a
Sabbath 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
for two meals. He was to sit down and eat at the
appointed distance, to bury what he had left, and
utter a thanksgiving to Cod for the appomted
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 th^ Sabbath is referred to by
Origen, irept' apxH", iv. 2 ; by Jerome, ad Alga-
stain, quaest. 10 ; and by Oecumenius — with some
apparent difterence between them as to the measure-
ment. Jerome gives Akiba, Simeon, and Hillel, as
the authorities for the lawful distance. [F. G-],
SABBATHE'US f 2o)3)3aTa?os : Sabbathaeus).
Shabbethai the Levite (1 l-:sd. 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 foftowed (ver. 12) by the re-en-
tbrcement 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 we combine these several notices, we find
that every seventh year the land was to have
rest to enjoy her Sabbaths. Neither tillage nor
cultivation of any sort was to be practised. The
spontaneous growth of the soil was not to be reaped
by the owner, whose rights of property were in
abeyance. All were to have their share in the glean-
in o^s : the poor, the stranger, and even the cattle.

This singular institution has the aspect, at first
sight, of total impracticability. This, however,
wears oft' when we consider that in no year was
the owner allowed to reap the whole haiTest (Lev.
xix. 9, xxiii. 22). Unless, therefore, the remainder
was gleaned veiy carefully, there may easily have
been enough left to ensure such spontaneous deposit
of seed as in the fertile soil of Syria would produce
some amount of crop in the succeeding year, while
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 yeai's
for their own and their families' wants. This is
the unavoidaljle inference from Lev. xxv. 20-22.
And though the right of property was in abeyance
during the Sabbatiad year, it has been suggested
that this only applied to the fields, and not to 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 thev might not be voluntarily

SABBATICAL YEAR

paid ; and it lias been questioned whether the re-
lease of the seventh year was final or merely lasted
through the year. This law wiis virtually abro-
gated m later times by the well-known prosbol' of
the great Hillel, a permission to the judges to
allow 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
obviously distinct — the one occurring at one fixed
time for all, while the other must have varied with
various fomilies, 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
pioperty ; 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 Tabeniacles, to the
assembled people. It was thus, hke the weekly
Sabbatli, 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 the
year of Jubilee. For the question whether that
was identical with the seventh Sabbatical j'ear, or
was that which succeeded it, i. e. whether the year
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 obligatoiy. It has been inferred
from Leviticus xxv. 2, " When ye come into the
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 mei'e 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 lest 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 inquiry
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 histoiy previous to the
Captivitv present us with no such spectacle. In the
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 fi-om 2 Chron.

" ^13D)"lQ = P'"°^''^''y TpojSovA^ or vpoa^oK-fj. For
tills and otlicr curious speculations on the etymology of the
word see IJuxturl', Lex. Talmud. Midi.

SABBEUS

xxxvi. 20, 21 : " Them 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 Jeremitxh, until the land had en-
joyed her Sabbaths ; for as long as she lay desolate
she kept Sabbath, to fulfil thi'eesoore and ton years."
Some of the Jewish commentators have inferred
from this that their forefathers had neglected exactly
seventy Sabbatiad years. If such neglect was con-
tinuous, the law must have been disobeyed through-
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 were 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 fomier neglect was re-
placed by a punctilious attention to the Law ; and as
its leading feature, the Sabbath, began to be scrupu-
lously reveienced, 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.
lil). V. 2, §4), having mentioned the oljservance of
the Sabbath by the Jews, adds : — " Dein blau-
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
and times (Gal. iv. lOj, from which we must infer
that the teachers who communicateil 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 crajS/Sarij)
SevTepoirpiirQ) (Luke vi. 1). Various explanations
have laeen 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 (2oi8)3aias ; Alex. 2a)3(Saiox : Sa-
ineas), 1 Esdr. ix. 32. [Shemaiah, 14.]
SABE'ANS. [SiiEBA.]

SA'BI (Sa^SeiV ; Alex. 2a/3t7j : Sabathen). "The
children of Pochereth of Zebaim " appear in 1 Esd.
V. o4 ar " the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabi."

SAB'TAH (nrinO, in 21 MSS. Nfiab', Gen.
s. 7 ; ND^D, 1 Chr.-i. 9, A. V. Sabta : 'XaffaTdd :
Sabathd). The third in order of the sons of Cush.
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 (\\. 7, p. 411), and
Anon. Peripl. (27), rf ipecting Sabbatha, Sabota, or
Sobotale, metiopolis 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, Seba, or Sheba.
This point will be discussed under Sheba. It is
only necessary to remark here that the indications
afforded by the Greek and Roman writers of Arabian
geography require very cautious handling, pre-

SACAR

1075

senting, as they do, a mass of contradictions and
transparent travellers' tales respecting the unknowfi
regions of Arabia the Happy, Arabia Thurifeia, &c.
Ptolemy places Sabbatha in 77° long. 16° 30' lat.
It was an important city, containing no less than
sixty temples (Pliny, N. II. vi. c. xxiii. §32) ; it w;\s
also situate in the territory of king Elisarus, or
l^leazus (comp. Anon. Peripl. ap. Miillei-, Geoij.
Min. 278-9), supposed by Presnel to be identical
with " Ascharides," or " Alascharissoun," in Arabic
(Journ. Asiat. Nouv. SeVie, x. 191). Winer thinks
the identification of Sabtah with Sabbatha, &c., to
be probable; and it is accepted by Bunsen {Bihel-
v:crk, G'eu. 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 Cush only Ethiopia, "has
no doubt that Sabtah should be compared with
SajSar, 2ay8a, 2a;3at (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, Pseudojonatban
saw the true meaning, rendering it ''XTDD, for
which read *N"lJOD, i. e. the Sembritae, whom
Strabo {loc. cit. p. 786) places in the same region.
Josephus {Ant. i. 6, §1) understands it to be the
inhabitants of Astabora " (Gesenius, ed. Tregelles,
s. f .). Here the etymology of Sabtah is compared
plausibly with 2a;8aT ; 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 Seha, which certainly was in
Ethiopia. On the Rabbinical authorities which
he quotes we place no value. It only remains
to add that Michaelis {Suppl. p. 1712) removes
Sabtah to Ceuta opposite Gibraltar, called in Arabic

Sebtah, xLkmi (comp. Jlarasid, s. v.) ; and that

Bochart {Phaleg, i. 114, 115, 252, segi?.), while
he mentions Sabbatha, prefers to place Sabtah near
the western shore of the Pei-sian Gulf, with the
Saphtha of Ptolemy, the name also of an island in
that gulf. [E. S. P.]

SAB'TECHA, aiid SAB'TECHAH (X^rinO •■
2a3ci9a/cci, 2e;8e0axa : Sabatacha, Sahathachn,
Gen. X. 7, 1 Chr. i. 9). The fifth in order of the
sons of Cush, whose settlements would probably 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 distiict, nor satis-
factorily with any name given by classical writers.
Bochart (who is followed by Bunsen, Bibelw., Gen.
X. and Atlas) argues that he shouhl be placed in Car-
mania, on the Pei'sian shoi-e of the gulf, comparing
Sabtechah with the city ofSamydace of Steph. Byz.
{'S.afj.iSaKT] or 2a/iUK:a5r) of Ptol. vi. 8, 7). This ety-
mology appeiirs 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.
Pseudojonatban CNJJT, Zingitani). [E. S. P.]

SA'CAR ("Ob*: 'Axap ; Alex. 2oxap: 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 regards Sacar
as the connect reading.

3 Z 2

1076

SACKBUT

2. (Saxap.) The fomth son of Obed-edom (1
Chr. xxvi. 4).

SACKBUT (N33D, Dan. iii. 5 ; N33b, Dan.

iii. 7, 10, 15: ffapL^vKt]: sambuca). The rendering
in the A. V. of tlie Chaldee sabbeca. If this mu-
sical instrument be the same as the Greek (rafi^vKr]
and Latin sumbuca,^ the English translation is en-
tirely wi'ong. The sackbut was a wind-instrument ;
the sambuca was played with strings. Mr. Chajspell
says {Pop. Mus. i. 35), " The sackbut was a bass
trumpet with a slide, like the modern ti-ombone."
It had a deep note according to Drayton {Foli/olbion,
iv. 365) :

" The hoboy, sagbut deep, recorder, and the flute."

The sambuca was a triangular instrument with
four or moi-e strings played with the fingers. Ac-
cording to Athenaeus (xiv. tJ33), Masurius described
it as having a shrill tone ; and Euphorion, in his
book on tlie 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
Ibyeus 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. 63-f), when raised it had the form of a ship
and a ladder combined in one. [W. A. W.]

SACKCLOTH (pb ;■ v^kkos: saccus). A
coarse texture, of a dark colour, made of goats'
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
materia! and the article (Gen. xlii. 25 ; Lev. xi.
32 ; Josh. ix. 4) ; and (2.) for making the rough
gannents used by mourners, which were in extreme
cases worn next the skin (1 K. xxi. 27; 2 K. vi.
30; Job xvi. 15; is. xxxii. 11), and this even by
females (Joel i. 8 ; 2 Mace. iii. 19), but at other
times weie worn over the coat or cethoneth (.Jon.
iii. 6) in 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 ajiplication of
the term chagar^ to the p:ocess 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.]

" Compare ambuhaia, from Syr. N3-13K, abbiibd, a
fliitc, where tlie m occupies the place of the dagosh.

^ -ijn.

SACRIFICE

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 of
the various words used to denote sacrifice in Scrip-
ture.

II. To examine the historical development of
saciifice 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 esjiecial reference to the Atonement of Christ.

I. Of all the words used in leference to sacri-
fice, the most general appear to be —

(a.) nnJD, minchah, from the obsolete root
T]}D, "to give;" used in Gen. xxxii. 13, 20, 21, of
a gift from Jacob to Esau (LXX. Swpov) ; in 2
Sam. viii. 2, 6 (|eV(a), in 1 K. iv. 21 (5wpa),
in 2 K. xvii. 4 {fxavad), of a tribute from a vassal
king; in Gen. iv. 3, 5, of a sacrifice generally
i^Sipov and dvcria, indiflereutly) ; and in Lev. ii.
1, 4, 5, 6, joined with the word korban, of an
unbloody sacrifice, or " meat-offijring" (generally
^S>pov Ovala). Its derivation and usage point to
that idea of sacrifice, which represents it as an Eu-
charistic gift to God our King.

(6.) ]31p, korban, derived from the root 2~\p>

" to approach," or (in Hiphil) to " make to ap-
proach ;" use I with minchah in Lev. ii. 1, 4, 5, 6,
(LXX. Scipov Bvffia), generally rendered Scopov
(see Mark vii. 1 1 , Kop^av, '6 iari SUpov) or irpoff-
(p6pa. The idea of a gitt hardly seems inherent in
the root ; which rather points to sacrifice, as a
symbol of communion or covenant between God
and man.

(c.) niT, zcbach, derived from the root PIST, to
"slaughter animals," especially to "slay 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
{dvaiap Kal Trporrcpopdv), 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 fiom these general terms, and often
appended to them, are the words denoting special
kinds of sacrifice : —

((?.) n^iy, olah (generally oAoKaurco/ia), the
" whole burnt-offering."

(e.) u7^\ shelem {Ovffia a-iOTqpiov), used fre-
quently with n^T, and sometimes called |3"]p, the
" peace-" or " thank-offering."

C/.) riNtSn, chattdth (generally -rrep] ajxapTia-s),
the " sin-offering."

(g.) DK'N, dshdm (generally TrAvj^^ugAefa) the
" trespass-ortering."

For the examination of the derivation and mean-
ing of these, see each under its own head.

II. (A.) Origin of Saoitifice.

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 lias
probably been e.xaggeratcd. There can be no doubt,

SACRIFICE

that sacrifice was sanctioned by God's Law, with a
special typical reference to the Atonement of Christ;
its univeisal prevalence, independent of, and often
opposed to, man's natnral reasonings on his relation
to God, shows it to have been primeval, and deeply
rooted in the instincts ofliumanity. Whether it was
first enjoined by an external command, or whether
it was based on that sense of sin and lost communion
with (iod, 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 theorv of the
method of primeval revelation, but certainly one,
which does not affect the authority aiid the meaning
of the lite itself.

The gi'eat 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 I'eference 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 anv 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 lea<t 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 c:: this side of the
(juestion. 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 gi'adually 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 io 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 higiier 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 v/as 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.
Leg. 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

SACRIFICE

1077

" See, for example (as in Faber's Origin of Sacrifice),

the elaborate reasoning on the translation of DNtSH

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 TAX., and of the remarkable grammatical con-
struction of the masculine participle, with the feminine
noun (as referring to the fact that the sin-offering was

at least probable, that when God sanctioned foi-mally
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.

(B.) Ante-Mosaic Histokv of Sacrifick.

In examining the various sacrifices, recorded in
Scripture before the establishment of the Law, we
find that the words .specially denoting expiatory
sacrifice (DNtSn and U^H) 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 bloodv
sacrifice. (So in Heb. xi. 4 the word Qviria is
explained by the rols Sdpois below.) In the case
of both it would appear to have been eucharistic,
and the distinction between the ofierers to have
lain in their " faith " ( Heb. xi. 4). Whether that
fiith of Abel refen-ed 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 bumt-oft'ering (olah). This sacrifice
is expressly connected with the institution of the
Covenant which follows in ix. 8-17. The same
latification of a covenant is seen in the burnt-
offering of Abraham, especially enjoined and defined
by God in Gen. xv. 9 ; and is probably to be traced
in the " building of altars " by Abraham on entering
Canaan at iSethel (Gen. xii. 7, 8) and Mamre (.xiii.
18), by Isaac at Beersheba (xx\-i. 25), and by Jacob
at Shechem (.xxxiii. 20), and in Jacob's setting up
and anointing of the pillar at Bethel (xxviii. IS,
XXXV. 14). The sacrifice {zehach) of Jacob at Mizpah
also marks a covenant with Laban, to which God
is called to be a witness and a party. In*nll these,
therefore, the prominent idea seems to have been
what is called the federative, the recognition of a
bond between the sacrificer 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. 1-1.3) stands by
itself, as the sole instance in which the idea of human
sacrifice was even for a moment, and as a trial,
countenanced 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 foregiound ; the expiatory idea, if recog-
nised at all, holds certainly a secondary position.

In the burnt-offisrings of Job for his children
(.Tob 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
Ijord 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.

1078 SACRIFICE

of expiation for sin, accompanied by repentance and
prayer, and brought pi'ominently forward. The
sanie is the case in the words of Moses to Pharaoh,
as to the necessity of sacrifice in the wilderness
, (Ex. s. 251, where sacrifice (zcbach) is distinguished
from burnt-otfering. Here the main idea is at least
deprecatory ; the object is to appease the wrath, and
avert the vengeance of God.
(C.) The SAcraFiCES of the jMosaic Period.
These are inauguratal by the ofiering of the
Passover and the sacrifice of Ex. xxiv. The
Passover indeed is unique in its character, and
seems to embi-ace 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 tlie 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. 2.5). 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-
offering" 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
various forms of sacrifice : —

(a.) The bumt-otfering. Self-dedicatory.

(6.) The meat-offering {unUoody) I e^charistic.
The peace-offermg [bloody) J

(c.) The sin-offering Jexpiatory.
The trespass-offering)

To these may be added, —

{dl) The incense offered after sacrifice in the
Holy Place, and (on the Day of Atonement) in the
Holy of Holies, the symbol of the intercession of the
priest (as a type of the Great High Priest), accom-
panying and making efficacious the prayer of the
people.

In the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev.
viii.) we find these offered, in what became ever
afterwards the appointed order : first came the
sin-ofteinng, to prepare access to God ; next the
burnt-offering, to mark their dedication to His
sei-vice ;^ and thirdly the meat-offermg of thanks-
giving. The same sacrifices, in the same order,
with the addition of a peace-offering (eaten no
doubt by all the people), were offered a week after
for all the congregation, and accepted visibly by
the descent of fire upon the burnt-ortering. Hence-
forth thfi sacrificial system was fixed in all its pai-ts,
until He should come whom it typified.

It is to be noticed that the Law of Leviticus

b For instances of infringement of this rule uncansurod,
see Jiidg. ii. 5, vi. 26, xiii. 13 ; 1 Sam. xi. 15, xvL 5 ; 2 Sam
vi. 13; 1 K. iii. 2, 3. Most of these cases are special,

SACRIFICE

takes the rite of sacrifice for granted (see Lev. i. 2,
ii. 1, &c., " If a man bring an offering, ye shall,"
&c.), and is directed chiefly to guide and limit its
exercise. In every cr^se but that of the peace-
offering, the nature of the victim was carefully
prescribed, so as to piesei-ve the ideas symbolized,
but so as to avoid the notion (so inherent in
heathen systems, and finding its logical result in
human sacrifice) that the more costly the ofl'ering,
the more surely must it meet with acceptance.
At the same time, probably in order to impress
this truth on their minds, and also to guard against
corruption by heathenish ceremonial, and against
the notion that sacrifice in itself, without obedi-
ence, could avail (see 1 Sam. xv. 22, 23), the place
of offering was expiessly limited, first to the Taber-
nacle,'' afterwards to the Temple. This ordinance
also necessitated their periodical gathering as one
nation before God, and so kept clearly before their
minds their relation to Him as their national King.
Both limitations brought out the great tnith, that
God Himself provided the way by which man
should approach Him, and that the method of
reconciliation was initiated by Him, and not by
them.

In consequence of the peculiarity of the Law, it
has 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
from Egypt, in order to guard against worse super-
stition and positive idolatry. The argument is
mainly 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
Jlosaic ceremonial, so remarkably contrasted with
the freedom of patriarchal sacrifice, and as furnish-
insc an explanation of cei-tain 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 with
the gigantic system of idolatry, which prevailed in
Egjpt", and which had so deeply tainted the spirit
ofthe Israelites, would doubtless render such pro-
vision then especially necessary. It was one part
of the prophetic olfice to guard against its degrada-
tion into formalism, and to bring out its spiritual
meaninsT with an ever-increasing clearness.

(D.) Post-Mosaic Sacrifices.

It will not be necessaiy to pursue, in detail, the
history of Post-JIosaic 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 tte Law pro-
liably did not attain to its full strictness till the foundation
of tlie Temple.

SACKIFICE SACRIFICE - 1079

(2 Chr. XXX. 21-24). In each case, the lavisli use
of victims was chiefly in the peace-of?enngs, which
were a sacred national feast to the peojjle at the
Table of their Great King.

The regular sacrifices in the Tem])le service
were : —

(a.) Burnt-Offerings.

1. The daily burnt-offerings (Ex. xxix. 38-42).

2. The double burnt-offerings on the Sabbath
(Num. xxviii. 9, 10).

3. The burnt-ofierings at the great festivals
(Num. xxviii. 11-xxix. 39).

(6.) Meat-Offerings.

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 ever}' Sabbath (Lev. xxiv. 5-9).

3. The special meat-offerings at the Sabbath and
the gi-eat festivals (Num. xxviii., xxix.).

4. The first-fruits, at the Passover (Lev. xxiii.
10-14), at Pentecost (xxiii. 17-20), both " wave-
offerings ;" the first-fruits of the dough and thresh-
ing-floor at the harvest-time (Num. .\v. 20, 21 ;
Deut. xxvi. 1-11), called "heave-offerings."

(c.) Sin-Offekings.

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
Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.).

{d.) Incense.

1. The morning and evening incense (Ex. xxx.
7-8).

2. The incense on the Great Day of Atonement
(Lev. xri. 12j.

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
any uncleanness (Lev. xv.), at the fulfilment of
Nazaritic and other vows (Num. vi. 1-21), on oc-
casions of marriage and of burial, &c., &c., besides
the frequent 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,
the order of idea is not necessarily the same as the
order of time. By the order of sacrifice in its per-
fect form (as in Lev. viii.) it is clear that the sin-
offering occupies the most important place, the
bmirt-offering comes next, and the meat-offering or
peace-offering last of all. The second could only
be offered, after the first had bQ.en accepted; the
third was only a subsidiary part of the second.
Yet, 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-oiferino- ;
and that, under the Law, by which was " the know-

<^ See Magee's Diss, on Sacr., vol. i. diss, v., and Ernst i quoted In notes 23, 26, to Thomson's Sampton Lectures,
von Lasaulx's Treatise on Greek and Roman Sacrifice, i 1853.

ledge of sin " (Rom. iii. 20) the sin-offering was for
the first time explicitly set forth. This is but na-
tural, that the deepest ideas should bo the last in
order of development.

It is also obvious, that those, who believe in the
unity of the O. and N. T., and the typical nature
of the Mosaic Covenant, must view the type in
constant reference to the antitype, and be prepared
theiefore 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 Israehte; but as they
were illustrated by the Prophets, and perfectly in-
tei-preted in the N. T. {e. g. in the Epistle to the
Hebrews). It follows from this, that, as belonging
to a system wliich was to embrace all mankind in
Its influence, they should be also compared and
contiasted 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 is 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 the gods'
favour could be purchased for the wicked, or their
" envy " be averted from the prosperous. On the
other hand, that they were 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 ideu
of sacrifice, as a representation of the self-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 sacrificer, is not capable of any full
explanation by any of the ideas above referred to.
Whether it represented the death of the sacrificer, 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 allowed to preclude that epithet.

Now the essential difference between these heathen
views of sacrifice and the Scriptural doctrine of
the 0. T. is not to be found in its denial of any of

1080

SACRIFICE

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 fonn of worship, a thank-oflering:, a
selMevotinn, and an atonement. In fact, it brings
out, clearly and distinctly, the ideas which in hea-
thenism were uncertain, vague, and pen-erted.

But the essential points of distinction are two.
First, that whereas the heathen conceived of their
gods as alienated in 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 i-estored.
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 foimd 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 unciefined by God, and even under
the Law, the nature of the peace-offerings, and ( to
.some extent, the burnt-offerings, was determined by
the sacrificer onlv, 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 minutel)' determined. (See, for
e.xample, the whole ceremonial of Lev. xvi.) It is
needless to remark, how this essential difference
purifies all the ideas above noticed from the cori-up-
tions, which made them odious or contemptible,
and sets on its true basis the I'elation 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 .lewish 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. Un the
one hand, for example, the sin-offering was an
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 reeei\ing 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 diffei-ent
persons, it is useless to speculate : but it would be
impossible to doubt, even if we had no testimonv
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 out some
gieat spiritual ti-uth, or action of His. Nor is it

■i Some render this (like sacer) " accursed ;" but th;;
primitive meaning, " clean," and the usage of (he word,
seem decisive against this. LXX. ayCa (yid. Gcsen. s. v.).

' In Lev. i. 4, it is said to " atone " (HSB, i. e. to
" cover," and so to " do aw.iy ;" I,XX. i^iXda-axrdai). Tbc

SACEIFICE

unlikely that, with more or less distinctness, he
connected the evolution of this, as of other truths,
with the coming of the promised Jlessiah. But,
however this be, we know that, in God's pur-
pose, the whole system was typical, that all its
spiritual efficacy depended on the true sacrifice
which it represented, and could be received only on
condition of Faith, and that, therefore, it passed
away when the Antitype was come.

The nature and meaning of the various kinds of
sacrifice is partly gathered from the form of their
in'-jtitution 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 Six-OFFERiKG repi^seuted that Covenant as
broken by man, and as knit together again, by God's
appointment, through the " shedding of blood."
Its characteristic ceremonv was the sjtrinkling 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 of
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 eveiything that
touched it was holy (EJ'lp).'' This latter point
marked the distinction from the peace-offering, and
showed that the sacrificer 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 for 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. Be 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 vicarious
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 Isiaelite."

The ceremonial and meaning of the BcRNT-
OFFERING were very ditierent. The idea of ex-
piation seems not to have been absent from it (for
the blood was sprinkled round about the altar of
sacrifice) ;* 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 secondar}'. The main idea is
the ofi'ering of the whole victim to God, lepresenting
(as the laying of the hand on its head shows) the

same word is used below of the sin-offering ; and the
later Jews distinguished the iTOmt-offering as atoning for
thoughts and designs, the sin-offering for acts of trans-
gression. (See Jonath. Pavaphr. on I^v. vi. 17 , &c., quoted
by Outran).)

SACRIFICE

devotion of the sacrifice!-, body and soul, to Him.
The death of the victim was (so to speak) an inci-
dental feature, to signify the completeness of the
devotion ; and it is to be noticed that, in all solemn
sacrifices, no burnt-ofleriiig could be made until a
previous sin-olfering had brought the sacrificer
again into covenant with Ood. 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 tirst-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 w
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-otfering ; 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 pe.ace-
offering was the eating of the flesh by the sacrificer
(after the fat had l3een burnt befoi-e 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 poor
(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
two.

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 of
these, taken by itself, would lead to error and
superstition. The propitiatory alone would tend
to the idea of atonement by sacrifice for sin, as
being effectual without any condition of repentance
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 eucharistic
alone leads to the notion that mere gifts can satisfy
God's service, and is easily penTrted into the
heathenish attempt to "bribe" God by vows and
offerings. All three probably were more or less
implied in each sacrifice, each element predomi-
nating in its turn : all must be kept in mind in
considering the historical influence, the spiritual
meaning, and the typical value of sacrifice.

Now the Israelites, while they seem always to
have retained the ideas of propitiation and of eucha-
I'istic offering, even when they pen'erted these by
half-heathenish superstition, constantly ignored the
self-dedication which is the liyk between the two,
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 the
Prophets is mainly directed ; its key-note is con-
tained in the words of Samuel: " Behold, to obey is
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of
rams" (1 Sam. xv. 22). So Isaiah declares (as in
i. 10-20) that " the Lorddelight-^ not in the blood
of bullocks, or lambs, or goats ;" that to those

who " cease to do evil and learn to do well

though their sins be as scarlet, they shall be white
as snow." Jeremiah reminds them (vii. 22, 23)
that the Lord did not " command burat-offerings

SACRIFICE

1081

or sacrifices" under Moses, but said, " Obey my
voice, and I will be 3'our God." Ezekiel is full of
indignant protests (see xx. 39-44) against the pol-
lution of God's name by offerings of those whose
hearts weie with their idols. Hosea sets forth
God's requirements (vi. 6) in words which our
Lord Himself sanctioned: "I desired mercy and
not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt-oft'erings." Amos (v. 21-27) puts it even
more strongly, that God "hates" their sacrifices,
unless " judgment run down like water, and
righteousness like a mighty stream." And Micah
(vi. 6-8) answers the question which lies at the
root of sacrifice, " Wherewith shall I come before
the Lord?" by the words, "What doth the Lord
require of thee, but to do justly, and love mercy,
and walk humbly with thy God ?" All these pas-
sages, and many others, are directed to one object —
not to discourage sacrifice, but to purify and spiritu-
alize the feelings of the offerers.

The same truth, here enunciated from without,
is recognized from within by the Psalmist. Thus
he says, in Ps. xl. 8-11, " Sacrifice and meat-
oft'ering, bui-nt-offering and sin-offering. Thou hast
not required;" and contrasts with them the ho-
mage of the heart — " mine ears hast Thou bored,"
and 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.
cxli. 2) : « Thinkest thou that I will eat bulls' flesh,
and 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 tnie 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 shalt thou
be pleased with burnt-offerings and oblations ; then
shall they off'er 3'oung bullocks upon thine alter.''
These passages are correlative to the others, express-
ing the feehngs, 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 stiU 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 gi'eat subject
of the Atonement (which would be foreign to the
scope of this article), it will be sufficient to refer to
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 Epistle 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" {Kara
(rvvelSrifftv) ; they were but " carnal ordinances, im-
posed on them till the time of reformation" (Si&p-
Ociaeais) (Heb. ix. 9, 10). The veiy fact of their
constant repetition is said to prove this imperfection.

1082

SACRIFICE

which depends on tlie 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 nllered in repentance and feith. On the
contrary, the object of tiie whole Epistle is to show
their typical and probationary character, and to
assert that in virtue of it alone they had a spiiitual
meaning. Our Lord is declared (see 1 Pet. i. 20)
" to have been foreordained " as a sacrifice " before
the foundation of tlie 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
who 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 sin^ provided tor by the sin-
offering were cei'tainly in some cases moral. [See
Sin-Offeiiing.] The whole of the Mosaic de-
scription of sacrifices clearly implies some real spi-
ritual benefit to be derived fi'om 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 urider the Law more than they had
hy 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
Antitype.

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 tiiemselves, 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 sacrificer ;f 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 I'epresentative of
the whole human race, off'eied 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, " aftei- tlie
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 same time, the True Son of God, exalted far
above all created things, and ever living to make
Intercession in heaven, now that His sacrifice is
over ; and that, in tlie last jdace, the barrier between
man and God is by His mediation done away lor
ever, and the Most Holy Place once for all opened

f It may be remembered that devices, sometimes ludi-
crous, soraetimes horrible, were adopted to make the

SACRIFICE

to man. All the points, in the doctrine of saciifice,
which had before been unintelligible, were thus
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 of
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 aione, ofl^ering His
sacrifice without any reference to the taith or the
conversion of men — ortei'ing it indeed for those who
" were still sinners" and at enmity with God.
Moreover it is called a " pi'opitiation " {iKaafxSs or
i\a(TT-fiptov, Kom. iii. 24 ; 1 John ii. 2) ; a " ran-
som" {airoXvTpoims, 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 wivith 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 (fx. 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 tor 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 oui- Lord's suff^ering
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 (Qvaia-
(TTTiptov) is said to have its antitype in His Passion
(xiii. 10). All the expiatory and propitiatory sacri-
fices of the Law are now for the first time bi'ought
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-oflfering, 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 Son, 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 all
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, mid suffering, to which that

victim appear willing ; and that voluntary sacrifice, such
as tliat oC the Decii, was held to be the noblest of all.

SACRIFICE

death was but a fitting close. In the passage above
referreil to the allusion is not to the 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 vicai-ious. 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 0. T.,
and especially (see Heb. x. 6-9) the words of Ps. xl.
6, &c., which contrast with material sacrifice the
" doing the will of Cod." 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
thev inseparably connected in idea. Thus it is put
forth in Rom. xii. 1, where the "mercies of God"
(i. <?. 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 ha\«
"the sufferings of Christ abound in us" (2 Cor. i.,
5); even to " fill up that which is behind" (to
ixTTep^fxara) thereof (Col. i. 24) ; and to " be
offered" [aireuSeaOat) " upon the sacrifice of the
faith " 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 also without the burnt-offering the sin-olfering
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 office 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. iv. 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 i?in) between man and God ; and that the conti-
nual burnt-o^ering 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 (Kev. viii. 4). [Prayer.]

The typical sense of the meat-ofiering, or peace-
offering, is less connected with the sacrifice of Christ
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 well
pleased" (Heb. xiii. 15, 16) as with "an odour of
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 enabi,-d
to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it
weie, the ornaments and accessories of that self-
dedication.

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 made by Him one channel

SADDUCEES

1083

a value, partly symbolical, paitly acttial, but in all
respects derived from the one True Sacrifice, of
which it was the type. It involved the expiatory,
the self-dedicatory, and the eucharistic ideas, each
gradually developed and explained, but all capable
of full explanation only by the light reflected back
from the Antitype.

On the antiquarian part of the subject valualde
information may be found in Spencer, De Legihus
Hebraeonim, and Outram, De Sacrificiis. The
question of the origin of sacrifice is treated clearly
on either side by Fabev, On the {Divine) Origin of
Sacrifice, and by Davison, Inquiry into the Origin
of Sacrifice ; and Warburton, Div. Leg. (b. ix. c. 2).
On the genei-al subject, see Magee's Dissertation on
Atonement ; the Appendix to Tholuck's Treatise on
the Hebrews ; Kurtz, Der Alttestamenlliche Opfer-
citltus, Mitati, 1862 ; and the catalogue of autho-
rities in Winer's Eealworterb. " Opfer." But it needs
for its consideration little but the careful study of
Scripture itself. [A. B.]

SADAMI'AS (Sadanias). The name of Shal-
liOM, one of the ancestors of Ezra, is so written in
2 Esd. i. 1.

SA'DAS {'Apyai ; Alex. 'Affrad : Archad).
AzGAD (1 Esd. v! 13; comp. Ezr. ii. 12). The
form Sadas is retained from the Geneva Version.

SADDE'USfAoSSaTos; Alex. AoXSaTos : Lod-
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 (2aS5ovKos: Sadoc). Zadok the
high-priest, ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 2).

SADDUCEES {'ZaSSovKoioi : Sadducaei :
Matt. iii. 7, .xvi. 1, 6, 11, 12, xxii. 23, 34; Mark
xii. 18 ; Luke xx. 27 ; Acts iv. 1, v. 17, xxiii. 6, 7, 8).
A religious party or school among the .lews 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 sigu 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. [Piiarisp:es, p. 885.] There are, 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.'S, viii. 3, 13-19, ix. 13 ;

of His Revelation. In virtue of that sanction it had ! an omission, which, asGeiger suggests, is not unim-

1084

SADDUOEES

portant in reference to the criticism of the Gospels
( Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 11)7).
Moreover, while St. Paul had been a Pharisee and
was the son of a Pharisee ; while Josephus was a
Pharisee, and the Jlishna was a Pharisaical digest
of Pharisaical opinions and practices, not a sinjcle
undoubted writing of an aclcnowledged 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 fonning
an estimate of their chai'acter, and its full bearing
will be duly appreciated by those who reflect that
even at the present da_y, with all the checks against
misrepresentation arising fiom 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 coiTect
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 caces 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 Tsedukhn ; the plural of
Tsadok, 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. \\\\. 17 ; 1 Chr. vi. 8, 13, &c. ; Neh. iii. 4, 29,
xi. 11). 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 discijile
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
rewai'd, but be like servants who sen'e 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 vii-tue 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. pi*lV ; Lightfoot's

Horae Hehraicae on Matth. iii. 8 ; and the Note
of Maimonides in Surenhusius's Mishna, iv. p. 41 1.)
]f, however, the statement is traced uj) 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
Talmud (Geiger's Urschrift, &c., p. 105) and that
the first mention of something of the kind is in a small
work by a certain Itabbi Nathan, which he wrote on

SADDUCEES

the Treatise of the Mishna called the Atoth, or " Fa-
thers." But the age in which this Kabbi Nathan lived
is uncertain (Bartolocci, Bibliothcca Magna Rahhi-
nica, vol. iii. p. 770). and the earliest mention of him
is in a well-known Piabbinical dictionary called the
Aruch," which was completed about the year 1105,
A.D. The following are the words of the above men-
tioned Kabbi 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 once 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 fiom Zadok
urther than Antigonus. Bearing this in mind, in con-
nexion with several other points of the s^me 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 l,aw ;
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 yeai-s
after the first appearance of the Sadducees as a paity
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 nanation as
unworthy of credit. Another ancient suggestion
concerning'the origin of the name "Sadducees," is
in Epiphanius (^Adversus Hacrcscs, i. 4), who states
that the Sadducees called themselves by that name
from " righteousness," the interpret^ion 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 coiTect, the name of the Sadducees was
not Tsaddikim 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 (firiffrdTris), it does not directly assert
that there was any connexion between his name
and theirs ; nor yet does it say that tiie coin-
(•idence between the two names was accidental.

" Aruch, or' Ariic ("jliyn). means "arranged," or "set j trentise on tlie^i'oWi, is made in the jlrncft under the word
in order." The author of this work was another liabbi I |''Din^3- T^^ treatise itself was yiuhlishi-d in a Latin
Nathan Ben Jechiel, president of ttie .Jewish Aaidcray at j translation by F. Tayler, at London, 1657. The original
Rome, who died in 1106, a.d. (See Bartolocci, JliU. Jiabb. j passage respecting Zadok's disciples is printed by Geiger
iv. 2G1). The reference to Rabbi Nathan, anther of the | in ^t-brcw, and translated by him, rr.vhrifl, .tc, p. 105.

SADDUOEES

Moreover, it does not give itiformation as to when
Zadok lived, nor what were those doctrines of his
which the Sadducees once held, but subsequently
departed from. The uusatisfactoriness of Epipha-
nius's statement is increased by its being coupled
with an assertion that the Sadducees were a branch
broken otF from Dositheus ; or in other words Schis-
matics fioiii Dositheiis (ctTrdcTTracrjua uvTes a-rh
Aocri6eov) ; for Dositheus was a heretic who lived
about the time of Christ (Origen, contra Celsum,
lib. i. c. 17 ; Clemens, Recognit. ii. 8 ; Photius,
Bibliotli. 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 inore than
100 years before Christ. (See Josephus, Ant. xiii.
9, §6, and xviii. 1, §'J, where observe the phrase e/c
rov irdvv apxo.iov. . .). Hence Epiphanius's expla-
nation of tlie origin of the word Sadducees must be
rejected with that of Kabbi 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 fiom 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-
evei' 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 he had, when named with him,
been always mentioned first (2 Sam. xv. 35, six.
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, xhi. 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, " Tken 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 anv reason reckoned themselves as

SADDUCEES

1085

k According to the Mishna, Sarihed. iv. 2, no one was
" clean," in the Levitical sense, to act as a judge in ca-
pital trials, except priests. Levites, and Israelites whose

belonging to the aristocracy ; such, for example,
as the families of the high-priest ; who had ob-
tained consideration under tlie dynasty of Herod.
These were for the most part judges,*" and indi-
viduals of the official and governing class. Mow,
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 doctrine
is at the present day rejected, probably by almost all,
if not by all. Christians ; and it is mdeed 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-Kabbi of the
circumscription of Colmar (Klein, Le Judaisine, on
la V^ritesur 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 not one
of his arguments has a positive historical value.
Thus he relies mainly on the inconceivabihty (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, wliich 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, as a
sacerdotal aristocracy, l)eing " with the high-priest."

1086

SADDUCEES

is the following (p. 10) : " In the first place, nothing
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 docti-ine presented by some
impostore 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 stirt-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 moi'ning? 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 fi-om father to son as the word of
(jod, it lived in the heart of the people, identiried
itself with the blood, and w£is 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 Bloses 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 fact. Moreover, it is a mistake to
assume, that tliey 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. 'I'he only phenomenon of importance requiring
explamition is not the existence of the customs sanc-
tioned by the Oral Law, but the belief accepted by
a cert<iin portion of the Jews that Moses had divinely
revealed those customs as laws to the Israelites.
To explain this historically from written records
is imjjossible, from the silence on the subject of the
very scanty 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 befoie the death of Antiochus
Kpiplianes, B.C. 16!. For all this space of time,
a period of about 374 years, a periotl 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 iSehemiah. And
the last named of these works does not carry the

>: See p. 32 of Essay on the Revenues of the Church
of England, by the Rev. Morsan Cove, Prebendary of
Jlcrel'ord, and Rector of Katon Bishop. 57H pp. Lundon,
Rivington, 1816. Third Edition. "Thus do we return
again to tlie original difficulty [the origin of Utiles], to the
bolutiou of wliich tlie strength of luiinan rcai^on is unequal.

SADDUCEES

history much later than one hundred years after the
return from the Captivity : so that there is a long and
extremely important period of more than two cen-
turies and a half befoie the heroic risinji of the
JIaccabees, during which there is a tofcil 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 a-s 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 any one
who bears in mind how notoriously in ancient times
laws of a much later date were attributed to Jlinos,
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 rex-e-
lation made to Adam."^' Now, let us suppose that
England was a country as small as Judaea ; that tlie
English were as few in number as the Jews of
Judaeji must have been in the time of Xehemiah,
that a temple in London was the centre of the English
religion, and that the population of London hardly
ever reached 50,000. [Jehosalem, p. lo25.] 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 been
gradually accepted by a large religious party in
England as a divine authority for tithes. If this
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 40u0 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 actd 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 ])rotested 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 to
Adam, and by him and his descendants delivered down to
posterity."

SADDUCEES

assertion that such points had been divinely settled
by Moses, they probably, in numerous instances,
followed practically the same ti'aditious as the Pha-
risees. This will explain why in the Mishua spe-
citic points of diilerencu between the Pharisees and
Sadduceesare 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 technirally " clean " or " unclean "
( Vadaim, iv. 6, 7). If the Pharisees and Sadducees
had difiei-ed 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-
nuine 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 ."*

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 tar 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 gi'eat
work aboiuids. 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 Hfe, and freedom from sickness (Deut.
vii. 12-15, xxviii. 1-12 ; Ex. xx. 12, xxi'ii. 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 moi'e
restricted indefinite sense, such as might be in-
volved in the transmigration of souls, or in the
immortivlity 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
stiiking 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.
6, 16 : Mark xii. 26, 27 ; Matt. xxii. 31, 32 ; Luke

SADDUCEES

1087

d Many other points of difference, ritual and juridiail,
are mentioned in the Gemaras. See Graetz, (iii. pp.
514-18). But it seems unsafe to admit the Gemaras
as an authority for statements respecting the Pharisees
and Sadducees. See, as to the date of those works,
the article Pharisees.

' See De Senectute, xxiii. This treatise was composed
within two years before Cicero's death, and although a

XX. 37). It cannot be doubted that in such a case
Christ would quote to his povvferful 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 diil
not aclaiowledge 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
^vere 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,
Jobxix. 26, and in some of the Psalms; and it may
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 Jews
regarded them as sacred in precisely the same sense
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 wei-e 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 ;
Deut. V. 4-, xxxiv. 10-12). Hence scarcely any Jew
would have deemed himself boimd 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 accejiting 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 means of the central light which
streamed from the Oral Law. The Sadducees, 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 sui>-

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 hia
oration pro Cluentio, cap. Ixi., in a passage which is a
striking proof of the popular belief at Rome in his time.
See also Sallust, Uatilin. li. ; Juvenal, ii. 149 ; and Pliny
the Elder vii. 56.

1088

SADDUCEES

posed to have been written hj men who believed in
a resunection (Is. xxxviii. 18, 19; Ps. vi. 5, xxx.
9, kxsviii. 10, 11, 12 ; Eccles. is. 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 tests in the Old Testament, and from
man's instincts, aspirations, and moral nature ; so,
admitting fially the s;une 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 the 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
foilify man against the violence of the passions and
the seductive attractions of vice, and to strengthen
his 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 Wiit;
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 heen passed over in
silence, and certainly God has not rehed 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 p)rophets 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
was " angel or spirit." A perplexity arises as to
the jMccise sense in which this denial is to be
understood. Angels are so distinctly mentioned in
the Pent;iteuch 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 «ould 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 iiict 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 jiriucipal explanations which
have been suggested are, either that the Sadducees
regarded the angels of tlie Old Testament ;is tran-
sitory unsubstantial represeufcrtions of Jehovah, or
that they disbelieved, not the angels of tiie Old
Testament, but merely the angelicil system which
had become developed in the popular belief of
tlie Jews after their return from the Babylonian
Captivity (Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel,

SADDUCEES

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 coimtenance from pas-
sages wherein the same divine appeai-ance which at
one time is called the " angel of Jehovah " is after-
wards called simply "Jehovah" fsee the instances
pointed out by Gesenius, s. v. ^NPJO, 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 Phai-isees suggested the possibility of a spirit
or an angel having spoken to St. Paul, on the very
occasion when it is asserted that the Sadducees
denied the existence of angel or spirit. Now the
Sadducees may have disbelieved in the occuirence
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 Stli verse that the Sadducees denied
"angel or spirit" would be found exclusively in
the 9th verse. This view of the Sadducees may be
illusti-ated 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 that
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 gi\'en to a difteience in
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 whicli criminal judges were selected. Jewish
philosophers in their study, althougli they knew
that pimishments ai? an instrument of good were
unavoidable, might indrJge in reflections that
man seemed to be the creature of circumstances,
and might regai'd 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
natmally insist on the inability of man to do anv-
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 fiom the tempti-
tions of Satan and evil angels or spirits (1 Chr. xxi.
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 perlbrming 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 sbadows tbat walk by us still,"

would expiess that portion of truth on which the
Sadducees, in inflicting punishments, would dwell
with most emphasis : and as, iu some sense, they
disbelieved in angels, these lines have a peculiai-

SADDUCEES

claim to be regarded as a correct exponent of
Sadducean thought.' And yet perhaps, if writings
were extant in which the Saddueees explained their
own ideas, we might tind that they reconciled these
principles, as we may be certain that Ezekiel did,
with other passages apparently of a diH'erent 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 itccount
of Josephus would lead us to suppose.

IV. Some of the early Christian wiiters, such as
Epiphanius (ffacrcs. xiv.), Origen, and Jeiome (in
their respective Commentaries on Matt. xxii. 31,
32, 3.3) attribute to the Saddueees the rejection of
all the Sacred Scriptures excejit the Pentateuch.
Such rejection, if true, would undoubtedly constitute
a most important additional diflerence between the
Saddueees and Pharisees. The statement of these
Christian writers is, however, now generally ad-
mitted to have been founded on a misconception of
the ti'uth, and probably to have arisen from a con-
fusion of the Saddueees with the Samaritans. See
Lightfoot's Horae Hehraicae on Matt. iii. 7 ;
Herzfeld's GeschicMe des Volkes Israel, ii. 3G3.
Josephus is wholly silent as to an antagonism on
this point between the Saddueees and the Pha-
lisees ; and it is absolutely inconceivable that on
the three several occasions when he introduces
an accMuit 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 Jose]ihus 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 caverns in various parts of the soil in
order to ^nk the surface to a level or slope, and
then to have diverted sti'eams of water over it. in
order to efikce marks of such a city having ever
existed. If the Saddueees 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
spoken of him as he does in the following manner: —
" He was esteemed by God worthy of three of the
greatest privileges, the goveinment of the nation,
the dignity of the high priesthood, and prophecy.
For God was with him, and enabled him to know
future e\-ents." Indeed, it may be infen-ed from
this passage that Josephus did not even deem it a
matter of vifcd impoi tiuice 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 Saddueees, was the circumstance that

SADDUCEES

1089

' The preceding lines would be equally applicable, if,
as is not iniprubaljle, (he Saddueees likewise rejected the
Ohaldaean belief in astrology, so common among the Jews
and Christians of the Middle Ages •—

VOL, ir.

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 'i'estament. But pro-
bable reasons have been alieady assigned why Chiist
in arguing on this subject with the Saddueees re-
ferred only to the supposed o])inions of 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 Saddueees, is
on other grounds well woithy to arrest the atten-
tion. This fact is the rapid disappearance of the
Saddueees 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 atter the
capture of Jerusalem by Titus ; and 2ndly. The
gi-owth of the Christian religion. As to the first
point it is difficult to over-estimate 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 : theii-
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 tlie clouds of heaven,
seemed to them for a while like emptv dreams ; and
the whole visible worlil was, to their imagination,
black witli desolation and despair. In this their hour
of darkness and anguish, they naturally turned to
the consolations and hopes of a future state, and the
doctrine of the Saddueees that there was nothing
beyond the present life, woidd 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 unrivalled missionary to the
heathen, was gradually making its way among the
subjects of their detested conquerors, the Komans.
One of the causes of its success was undoubtedly the
vivid belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and a con-
sequent }'esurrection of all mankind, which was
accepted by its heathen convei ts with a passionate
earnestness, of which those who at the pi-esent day
are familiar from infancy with the doctrine of the
resunection 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 ]X)wer by ordinary mechanical
restraints. Consciously, therefore, or unconsciously,
many circumstances combined to induce the Jews,
who were not Pharisees, but who j-esisted 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 sonl that can
Render an honest and a perfect man,
Commands all light, all iiilluence, all fate:
Nothing to him falls early, or too late."

Flktciier's Lines " l^pon an ITmicsl Man'i Fovtimt.'
4 A

1090

SADOC

early teaching and custom supplied the place of evi-
dence ; faith in an imaginary tact produced results as
striking as could have flowed from the tact itself;
and the doctrine of a Jlosaic Oral Law, enshrining
convictions and hopes deeply i-ooted in the human
heart, has triumphed for nearly 1800 centuries in
the ideas of the Jewish people. This doctrine, the
pledge of eteiTial 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 [E. T.]

SA'DOC {Sadoch). 1. Zadok the ancestor of
Ezra (2 Esd. i. 1 ; comp. Ezr. vii. 2).

2. (2a5a)/f : Sadoc.) A descendant of Zerubbabel
in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt. i. 14).

SAFFRON (D3"13, carcom : Kp6Kos : 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 " satiion"
is the correct rendering of the Hebrew word ; the
-Arabic 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-
muller (Bib. Bot. p. 138), " for the same puiposes
as the modern pot-pourri." Saffron was ^Iso used
in seasoning dishes (Apii.'ius, p. 270), it entered
into the composition of many spirituous extracts
which retained the scent (see Beckmann's Hist, of In-
vent, i. p. 17,5, 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. Kovle 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 saflron are gathered and exported to different
places in Asia and Europe. Kitto {Pliys. Hist, of
Palest, p. 321) says that thfe SatHower (Cartha-
mus tinctorius), a very dillerent plant from the
crocus, is cultivated in Syria for the sake of the
flowers which are used in dyeing, but the Karkoin
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 f2aAa : Sale). Salaii, or Shelah, the
father of Eber (Luke iii. 35).

SA'LAH (nbC' : S.aXi.: 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. ()). It thus seems to imply the historical
fact of the gradual extension of a branch of the
Semitic race from its oiiginal seat in Northern
Assyiia towards the river Euphrates. A place with
a similar name in Northern Mesopotamia is noticed
by Syrian writers (Kuobel, in Gen. xi.); but we

e In Germany and elsewhere, some of the most leurncd
Jews disbelieve in a Mosaic Oral I^w ; and Judaism seems
ripe to enter on a new phase, liascil on the Old Testa-
ment, but avoiding the mistakes of the Karaites, it might
Btill have a great future ; but whether it could last

SALAMIS

can hardly assume its identity with the Salah of
the Bible. Ewald {Gesch. i. 354) and Von Bohlen
(Introd. to Gen. ii. 205) regard the name as
purely fictitious, the fonner 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 (2aXa/iix: Salamis), a city at the
east end of the island of Cyprus, and the first place
visited b}' 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 the native-place of Barnabas,
and the geographical proximity of this end of the
island to Autioch. 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. Ani. xvi. 4,
§5), and this would probably attract many Hebrew
families : to which we may add evidence to tlie
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 Jens, iii. Ill, 112).
We may well believe that fi-om the Jews of Salamis
came some of those early Cypriote Christians, wlio
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 tlieie 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 Bai-nabas
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. Philem.), and, while it had this
name, Epiphanius was one of its bishops.

another 1800 years with the belief in a future life, as a
revealed doctrine, depending not on a supposed reve-
lation by Moses, but solely on scattered texts in the
Hebrew Scriptures, is an interesting subject for spec-
ulation.

SALASADAI

Of the travellers who have visited and described I
Salaniis, we must particularly mention Pococke
{Desc. of the East, ii. 214) and Ross {Reisen nach
Kos, Halikarnassos, Rliodos, und Cypern, 118-125).
These travellers notice, in the neighbourhood of
Salamis, a village named St. Sergius, which is
doubtless a reminiscence of Sergius Paulus, and a
large liyzantine church beaiing 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 ;
Sergius Paulus.] ' [J. S. H.]

SALASADA'I (2aA.a(raSai', Sapao-aSai", 2oiipi-
ffa^i), a variation ior Surisadaii'S.ovpia'ahai, Num.
i. 6; in Jud. viii. 1. [Zurishaddai.] [B. F. W.]

SALA'THIEL (^X''r)^Nt^ : S.aKaQiitK : Sa-
latldel: " I have asked God"»), son of Jechouias
king of Judah, and father of Zorobabel, according
to iVIatt. 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 ti-ue 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 informs
us that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and a de-
scendant of Nathan the son of David.** And from
his insertion in the royal pedigi'ee, 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
Neri's son, as Yardley and others have thought,
because he man-ied Neri's daughter, is palpably
absurd on the supposition of his being the sou 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 sou 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.

^ Possibly with an allusion to 1 Sam. i. 2i), 27, 28. See
Brough ton's Our Lord's Family.

^ It is worth noting that Josephus speaks of Zorobabel
as " the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of David, and of
the tribe of Judah " {A. J. xi. 3, }10). Had he believed him
tobe thesonof Jeconiah, of whom he had spoken (x. 11, }2),
he could hardly have failed to say so. Comp. x. 1, }1.

<: " 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 Salathiel's family up to Nathan,
whole brother to Solomon, to show that Salathiel was of I
another family, God's oath should make us believe that, '
without any further record" (Broughton, ut sitpr.). j

SALCHAH 1091

as noted above, two forms in Hebrew. 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 'S,a\a.9ir]\, 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
Jesus Christ; Jehoiachin.] [A. C. H.]

SAL'CAH f (n2^p : -^eKxal, 'Ax^, 26Ac{ ;

Alex. EXx«> AffeAxa, 2«A.X" • Salecha, Salacha<.
A city named in the early records of Israel as the
extreme limit of Bashan (Deut. iii. 10 ; Josh. xiii.
11) 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 oiSulkhad,
which stands at the southern extremity of the Jebel
Hauran, twenty miles S. of Kunaicat (the ancient
Kenath), which was the southern outpost of the
Lcja, the Argob of the Bible. Sulkhad is named
by both the Christian and ]\Iahomedan 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. 176-1 16). Its identification with Salcah appears
to be due to Gesenius (Burckhardt's Reisen, 5ij7).

Immediately below Sulkhad commences the plain
of the great Euphrates desert, which appears to
stretch with hardly an' undulation from here to
Basra 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.d. 196
(Septimius Severus), is found on a giave-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 ciater, and
its sides are still covered with volcanic cinder and
blocks of lava. [G.]

SAL'CHAH (na^D : 'E\x«: Selcha). The
form in which the name, elsewhere more accu-
rately given Salcah, appears in Deut. iii. 10

only. The Targum Pseiidojon. gives it X'^pllT'D,
i. 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 Coniment.
ii. 203, that in the 20th degree of ancestry every mau has
above a million of ancestors, and in the 40th upwards of a
million millions. ■

s The theory of two Salathiels, of whom each had a
son called Zerubbabel, though adopted by Hoitinger and
J. G. Vossius, is scarcely worth mentioning, except as a
curiosity.

f One of the few instances of our translators having
represented the Hebrew Caph by C. Their common prac-
tice is to use ch for it— as indeed they have done on one
occurrence of this very name. [Salchah ; and compare
Caleb ;• Caphtor ; Carmkl ; Cozbi ; Ci sh, &c.]

4 A 2

1092 SALEM

SA'LEM {Vhf, i. e. Shalem : SaArj/^ : Salem).

1. The place ofwliich Melcliize<iek was king (Oeii.
xiv. 18 ; Heb. vii. 1,2). No satisfactory identifica-
tion of it is perhaps possible. The indications of the
narrative are not sulHuient to give any clue to its
])Ositiou. It is not oven safe to infer, as some have
done," that it lay between Damascus and Sodom ;
tor though it is said that the king of Sodom — who
had probably regained his own city after the retreat
of the Assyrians — went out to meet (HNliP?) ^
Abram, yet it is also distinctly stated that this was
after Abram had returned ()2^^ "'"inX) 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 chieattbrded by the
mention of the Valley of Shaveh, since the situation
even of that is moie 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 Kpistle 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-zcdek. 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 ciilled ' tlie 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-Rahman, 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 Onkc\o?,{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
Psidmist, 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 {ral. 833).
The Ciiristians of the 4th century held the same
belief with the Jews, as is evident from an expres-
sion of Jerome (" nosU-i omnes," Ep. ad Evan-
gelum, §7j.

2. Jerome himself, however, is not of the same
opinion. He states [Ep. ad Evang. §7) without
hesitation, tliough ajiparently (as just observed)
alone in his belici', tliat the Salem of Melchizedek
was npt Jeriisaleni, but a town near Scythopolis,
which in his day was still called Salem, and where
the vast ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were

a For Instance, \^oc\ta.\l,I'haleg, ii. ; 4 Kwald, Gesch. i. 410.

!> The force of this word is occurrere in obviam (Gese-
nius, i'hes. 1233 ()).

•^ Professor Stanley scorns to have been the first to call
attention to this (.S'. ifc /'. 249). Sec EupoUmi Fragmenta,
auctore 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 slop in hoijuurs.

SALEM

still to be seen. Elsewhere {Onom. "Salem") he
loc<ates it more precisely at eight lioman miles fiom
Scythopolis, and gives its then name as Salumias.
Further, he identifies this Salem with the Salim
(2aA.6(/i) 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
Eamet 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 bad; 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 Scythopolis
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 or
recent times.

4. A tradition given by Eupolemus, a writer
knovvn 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
•^ High." Argarizin ^ 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 wouJd 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 Holofernes. " The valley
of Salem," as it appears in the A. V. (Thv av\S>t>a
SaXiijjU.), is possibly, as Reland has ingeniously sug-
gested {Pal. " Salem," p. 977), a corruption of tls
avKwva ds 'S.aKTjfi — " into the plain to Salem."
If AiiAoii' is here, according to frequent usage, the
Jordan ' valley, then the Salem referred to must

d Pliny uses nearly the same form — Argaris (//. iW
V. 14).

■-' AiiAwi' is commonly employed in Palestine topdRrapliy
for the great valley of the Jordan (sec Kusebiiis ami Je-
rome, OMmiaiticm; "Aulon"). But in the Book of Judith
it is used witli much less precision in the general sense of a
valley or plain.

SALIM

surely be that mentioned by Jerome, mid already
noticed. But in this passage it>may be with equal
probability the broad plain of the Muhkna which
stretches from Ebal and Gerizim on the one liand,
to the hills on which Saliin stands on the other,
vvhiclv is said to be still called the " plain of
Salinv'f (Porter, Ilandhook, 340a), and th)ongh
which runs the central north road of the country.
Or, as is perhaps still more likely, it refers to
another Saliin near Zeri7i (Jezreel), and to the
plain which runs up between those two places, as
far as Jenin, and which lay directly in the route
of tlie Assyiian army. There is nothing to show
that the invaders reached as far into the interior
of tha country as the plain of the Mukhna. And
the other places enumerated in the verse ^eem, as
far as they can be recognized, to be points which
guarded the main approaches to the interioi' (one of
the chief of which was by Jezreel and Engannim),
not towns in the interior itself, like Shechem or the
Salem near it.

2. {a}^ ■ if eip'fivi^ ■ in paces), Ps. Ixxvi. 2.
It seems to be agreed on all hands that Salem is
here employed for Jerusalem, but whether as a mei'e
abbreviation to suit some exigency of the poetry,
and point the allusion to the peace (salem) which
the city enjoyed through the protection of God, or
whether, after a well-known liabit of poets,'' 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. Tliis 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), tlie passage
might be taken as referring to the continued rela-
tion of God to the kingdom of Israel. But theie
ai-e 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. 1020] as frequently occumng and
imphed in the Psalms and Prophecies. [G.]

SA'LIM (2aX€iV ; Alex. SaWei/x : 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. 'I'here
is no statement in the narrative itself fxing 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 " Salem") that its name was then Salumias.
Elsewhere (Ep. ad Evangelum, §7, 8) he states

SALIM

1093

f The writer could not succeed (in 1861) in eliciting
this name 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 Sajiia.

s The above is the reartiiig of the Vulgate and of the
"Galilean Psalter." But in the Liber I'salmnrum juxta
llebraicam veritatem, in the Divina BiUliotheca included

that it was iiientical with tiir Salem of Melchi-
zedek.

Various attempts have been more recently made
to determine the locality of this interesting sj>ot.

1. Some (as Altbrd, Greek Test, ad loc.) propose
Shilhim and AiN, 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 SiiALiM of 1 Sam. ix. 4, Imt this latter
place is itself unknown, and the name in Hebrew
contains J?, to corresjiond with which the name in
St. John should be 2e7aA6iju or 2aa\e(;u.

2. Dr. Kobinson suggests the modern village of
Salim, three miles E. of Nahlus {B. R. iii. 333),
but this is no less out of the circle of St. John's
ministrations, and is too near the Samai'itans ; and
although there is some reason to believe that the
village contains " two sources of living water "
{ih. 298), yet this is hardly sufficient for the
abundance of deep water implied in the naiTative.
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.
Yamin lies about IJ hour S.E. of Salim, but thi*
can hardly be the place intended ; and iu th
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 Seleiin, and Aenon in the copious springs
oi Ain Farah {ih. 559), among the deep and in-
tricate ravines some five miles N.E. of Jerusalem.
This certainly has the name in its flwoui', 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 discovei'ed
by Mr. Van de Velde {Syr. ^ Pal. ii. 345, 6) in a
position exactly in accordance with the notice of liu-
scbius, 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 Saliin (see also Memoir, 345). Dr. Robin-
son (iii. 333) complains that the name is attached
only to a Mussulman sanctuary, and also that no
ruins of any extent ai'e 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 that
the locality is in the closest agieement with the
notice of Eusebius. As to the second it is only ne-
cessary to point to Kefr-Saha, where a town (An-
tipatris), which so late as the time of the desti'uc-
tion of Jerusalem was of gi'eat 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 ])rogress 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
in the name of Aenon (springs), and the direct

in the Benedictine Edition of Jerome's works, the reading
is Salem,

h The Arab poets are said to use the same abbreviation
(Gesenius, Thes. 1422 b). The preference of an archaic to
a modern name will surprise no student of poetry, few
things arc of more constant occm'rence.

1094

SALLAI

statement of the text, that the place contained
abundance of water. " The brook of Wady Chiisneh
runs close to it, a splendid fountain gushes out
beside the Wely. and rivulets wind about in all
directions. ... Of few places in Palestine conld it
so truly be said, ' Here is much water ' " {Syr. ^
Fal. ii. 346).

A tradition is mentioned by Keland {Palaesiina,
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 ''7D: StjA^ Alex.

'S-qKel : Selldi). 1. A Benjamite, who with 928
of liis tribe settled in Jerusalem after the captivity
(Sell. xi. 8).

2. (2aA.a/'.) The head of one of the courses of
priests who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel
(Neh. sii. 20). In Neh. xii. 7 he is called Sallu.

SAL'LU (-Dp: 2aA.£Uyu, 27)A.c6; Alex. 2aA.d5
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.
si. 7).

2. (Om. in Vat. MS.; Alex. 'SaXovd'i: Sellum.)
The head of one of the courses of priests who
returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 7). Called
also Sallai.

SALLU'MUS {'S,a\ov/iios ; Alex. :S.a\\odfios :
Salumus). Shallum (1 Esd. ix. 25; comp. Kzr.
X. 24).

SAUMA, or SAL'MON (HD^b, No'pb, or

pJOT'tJ' : 2aA.ju.ccv ; Alex. 2aAjua;/, but ^aXoifXiiu

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 P.ahab of Jericho to be his wife, and
from this union sprang the Christ. [Kahab.]
From the circumstance of Salmon having lived at
the time of the conquest of Cana;m, as well as from
his being the first proprietor of Bethlehem, where
his family continued so many centuries, perhaps till
the reign of Domitian fEuseb. 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, looked
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

* Eusebius (Chron. Canon, lib. i. 22) has no misgiving
as to the identity of Salma.

I) See a work by Reuss, Der acht und seclizigste Psalm,
ein Denlcmal exegetischer A'oth und Kunst, zu Ehren unsei-
yaiizen Zunft, Jena, 1851. Iiidrpciidciitly of its m..iiy
obscure allusions, the 68lh Psalm contains thirteen airaj
Afyofiei'a, including y)^7\. It may be observed that
this word is scarcely, as (Jesenius suggests, analogous to
}^27in, D^nXn, HiphUs of colour; for tlicse words have

SALMON

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 sitch slight differences
as those in the three forms of this name are scarcely
worth noticing. Compare e. g. the different forms
of the name Shiinea, 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 other
examples in Hervey's Geneal. of our Lord, ch. vi.
and X. j\Ioreover, 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. Keunicott
{Dissert, i. p. 184, 543), is not worth refuting."
As regards the Salma of 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54, his con-
nection with Bethlehem identities him with the son
of Nahshon, and the change of the final H into N
belongs doubtless to the late date of the Book of
Chronicles. The name is so wi'itten 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 ordet 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 sons 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, ^Ji((('ysw, iii. 44; Burring-
ton, Geneal. i. 189; Dr. Mill, Vindic. of our Lord's
Geneal. 123, &c. [A. C. H.]

SALMANA'SAK {Salmanasar). Shalman-
ESER, king of Assyria (2 Esd. xiii. 40).

SAL'MON (liD^V : SeAiaajj/ : Salmon, Judg.
ix. 48). The name of a hill near Shechem, on whii^h
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 diliicult of all the
Psalms'- (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 dilfer from each other ;
and Viirst, within 176 pages of his Handworterbuch,
differs from himself (see jjpti' and jlO'PV). Indeed,

a signification of colour in Kal. The really analogous
word is I'tSpn, "he makes it rain," which bears the
same relation to 1130. " rain," which Jv^H l"''^'''* '°
y>\^, " snow." Owing, probably, to Hebrew religious
conceptions of natural phenomena, no instance occurs of
T'PPn used as a neuter in the sense of " it rains;"
though this would be grammatically admissible.

SALMON

of six distinguished modem commentators — De
Wette, Hitziff, Ewald, Hengstenl)ei-g, 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, ditfers from any one of those
suggested by those 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 pO^V? ih^^} is " Thou
makest it snow," or " It snows," with liberty to use
the word either in the past or in the future tense.
As notwithstanding ingenious attemjits, 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 tliat
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 verv 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 Salmon cannot have been a very high
mountain, as the highest mountains near Shechem
;ue Ebal and Gerizim, and of these Ebal, the highest
of the two, is only 1028 feet higher than the city
(see Ekal, 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 naturalto select
Heimon, 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. Tsnlmon, is not a
proper name in this passage, but merely signifies
•' darkness ;" and this interpretation, supported by
the Targum, though opposed to the Septuagint, has
been adopted by Ewald, and in the first state-
ment in his Lexicon is admitted by Fiirst. Since
tselem signifies " shade," this is a bare etymo-
logical possibility. But no such word as tsalinon
occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew language ; while
there are several other words for darkness, in
diflerent degrees of meaning, such as the ordinary
word choshek, ophel, 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 mind.

SALOME

1095

the key to which is 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 the
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(2aX;Ucoi/»j: 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 aUbrd 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. (eVaj/-
Tiouy, ver. 4; ^paZvirXoovvris, 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. iron) Cnidus.
Now we may take it for granted that she could
have made good a course of less than seven points
from the wind [Ship] : 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 .lordanhill ( 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
Havkxs, near Lasaea. [J. S. H.]

SA'LOM (2aAci;u: Salom). The Greek form
1. of Shallum, the father of Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7).
[SiiALLrii.] 2. (Salomus) of Salu the father of
Zimri (1 Mace. ii. 26). [Salu.]

SALO'ME {•S.aAii/j.n : Salome). 1. The wife of
Zebedee, as appears from comparing Matt, xxvii.
56 with Mark xv. 40. It is further the opinion of
many modern critics that she was the sister of
i\Iary, 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 of 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 nan-ative with those of Matthew
and Mark — that this circuitous manner of describing
his own mother is in character witli 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 I'eshito, the Persiim, and the

1096

SALT

Aethiopio vei-sions mark the distinction between the
second and third by interpolating a conjunction. On
the other hand, it may be urged that the dilliculty
arising out of the name may be disposed of by
assuming a double marriage on tlie 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
gbsence 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 theinselves, 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 foi-mer view
(see Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 648). The
only events recorded of .Salome aie 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 kingof Chalcis. [W. L. B.]

SALT(nT'D; aKs: sal). Indispensable as salt

is to ourselves, it was even more so to the Hebrews,
being to them not only ah appetizing condiment in
the food both of man TJob vi. 6) and beast (Is.
xxx. 24, see margin), and a most valuable antidote
to the etiects of the he;it 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 tlie Valley of Salt (2 Sam. viii.
13), in proximity 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 mai'shes 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 pi'ocured from the Mediterranean
Sea, and finm this source the Phoenicians would
naturally obtain the supply necessary for salting
fish (Neh. xiii. IG) and for other purposes. The
.lews appear to have distinguished between rock-
salt and that which was gained by evaporation, as
the Talmudists particularize one sjipcies (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-
pits formed an important source of revenue to the

» According to one account she was the daughtor of
.Joseph by a lomier marriage (lipiphan. y/aer. Ixxviii. S) :

SALT

rulers of the country (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 4, §9),
and Antiochus confeired a valuable boon on Jeru-
salem by presenting the city with 375 bushels of
salt for the Temple service (^Ant. xii. 3, §3). In
atldition to the uses of salt already specified, the
interior sorts were ajtplied 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 ; ,Ter.
xvii. C ; comp. Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, §2, aA/xvpciSris
Koi &yovoi) ; and hence also arose the custom ot
sowing with salt the foundations of a destroyed city
(Juiig. 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 (/u-wpavdij, Matt.
V. 13) and become saltless (^.i/aXov. Mark ix. 50).
The same fact is implied in the expressions of Pliny,
sal iners (xxxi. 39), sal tahescere (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 fiom 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 teim for traitor is nemekharani, " 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 ovXoxvrat (Horn.
II. i. 449), the Romans with their mola salsa (Hor.
Sat. ii. 3, 200) or their salsae frugcs (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 oHered 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" is
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 of Joseph (Niceph. //. E.
ii. 3).

SALT, CITY OF

(Matt. V. lo; Col. iv. 6). The custom of rubbing
infants with salt (Ez. xvi. 4) originated in sani-
tary considerations, but received also a symbolical
meaning. [VV. L. B.]

SALT, CITY OF (n^^nn^J? : at nSMis
^aSSii' ; Alex, ai iroAts a\wv : civitas Salis).
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 {B. R. ii. lU9)
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 ^alt. 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 {Sijr. 4'- Pal. ii. 99, Memoir,
111, and Map) mentions a Nahr Maleh which he
passed in his I'oute from Wady el-Rmail to Sebbeh,
the name of which (though the orthogi-aphy is not
certain) may be found to contain a trace of the
Hebrew. It is one of four ravines which unite to
foi-m 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 (H^D X'*;), but twice
with the article, Pl'piSn 'il : TefieAf/x, Te/xeAeS,
KOi\as, and <pdpay^, rSiv aXSiv ; Alex. FTjjuaAa,
TaijxiXa : Vallis SaUnaruin). A certain valley, or
perhaps more accurately a " ravine," the Hebrew
woid Ge appearing to bear that signification — in
which occuired two memorable victories of the
Israelite amis.

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 (I K. xi. 15, 16 ; Ps. Ix.
title). The number of Edomites slain in the battle
is uncertain : the narratives of Samuel and Chronicles
both aive it at 18,000, but this figure is lowered in
the ti"tle of Ps. Ix. to 12,000.

2. That of Amaziah (2 K. xiv. 7 ; 2 Chr. sxv.
11), who is related to have slain ten thousand
Edomites in this valley, and then to have jn-o-
ceeded, with 10,000 prisoners, to the stronghold of
the nation at has-Sela, the Cliff, i. e. Petra, and,
after taking it, to have massacred them by hurling
them down the precipice which gave its ancient
name to the city.

SALT, VALLEY OF

1097

» The Received Text of 2 Sam. viii. 13 omits the men-
tion of Edomites ; but from a comparison of the parallel
passages in 1 Chr. and in the title of I's. Ix. there is good
ground for believing that the verse originally stood thns ;
" And David made himself a name [when he returned
from smiting tlie Aramites] [and when he returned he
smote the Edomites] in the Valley of Salt — eighteen
thousand ;" the two clauses within brackets having been
omitted by the Greek and Hebrew scribes respectively,
owing to the very close resemblance of tlie wuids with
which each clause finishes— Q>01J< and CiDIN- I"'"'^
is the conjecture of Theuius {Exeij. IJandbuch), and is

Neither of these notices affords any clue to the
situation of the V^alley of Salt, nor does the cursoiy
mention of the name ("Gemela" and "Mela")
in the Onomasticon. By Josephus it is not named
on either occasion. Seetzen (lieisen, ii. ;'i56) 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 taken
(more decisively) by Dr. Robinson {B. Ii. 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. corner
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 safetT
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 unplicit
reception which most writers have given it since the
publication of Dr. R.'s Researches.

{a) The word Ge (^<''J), employed for the place
in question, is not, to the writer's knowledge, else-
whei'e applied to a broacj valley or sunk plain
of the nature of the lower Ghor. Such tracts are
denoted in the Scripture by the words Etnek or
Bika'ah, while Ge appears to be resa-red for clefts
or ravines of a deeper and narrower character.
[Valley.]

(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
parts of the same valley — ha-Arahah — 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-Milh, the representative
of the ancient Moladah, some sixteen miles south
of Hebron. Like melach, milh signifies salt ; but
there is no reason to believe that there is any salt
present there, and Dr. liobinson {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
name.

{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. A.ssuming
Selah to be Petra (the chain of evidence for which

adopted by Bunsen (Bibelwerk, note to the passage).
Ewald has shown (^Gesch. iii. 201, 2) that the whole

passage is very much disordered. D^ ^'V!l should pro-
bably be rendered " and set up a monument," instead
of "and gat a name" (Gesen. Thes. 14316)); Michaelis
(Suppl. No. 2501, and note to Bibelfur Ungel.) ; De Wette
{Bihel) ; LXX. Coisl. koI i6-t]Kev eo-njA.M/i.e'nji' ; Jerome
{Quaest. Ilebi'.), erexit fornicem triumphalcm. liaschi
interprets it " reputation," and makes the reputation to
have arisen from David's good act in burying the dead
even of his enemies.

1098 SALU

is tolerably connected), it seems diflicult 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. [0.]

SA'LU (X-1?D : SaA^aJc ; Alex. %a\<a : Salu).
The father of Zimri the prince of the Simeonites,
who was slain by Phiuehas (Num. x.xv. 14). Called
also Salom.

SA'LUM(2aA.oij^: Esmennns). 1. Siiallum,
the head of a family of gatekeepers (A. V. " porters")
of the Tempk' (1 Esd. v. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42).

2. (2a\-)]fjLos : Solome.) Shallum, the father
of Hilkiah and ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 1 ;
comp. Ezr. vii. 2). Called also Sadamias and
Sadom.

SALUTATION. Salutations may be classed
iftder the two heads of conversational and epistolary.
'I'he salutation at meeting consisted in early times
of various e.xpiessions 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 " saiute," 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
person addressed or his relations. The Hebrew
term used in these instances (shdlom'^) 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 Sara. 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. x.\ii. 6), but in later
times the teim shdlom was introduced here also in
the form " (jo 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 is
adopted by Him in His parting addiess 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 Cireeks, their word x"'P*"' being used
both at meeting (Matt. xxvi. 49, xxviii. 9 ; Luke i.
28), and probably also at depai-ture. In modeiii
times tlie ordinary mode of address current in the
East resembles the tiahvew :—Es-seldin alcykuia,
" Peace be on you" (Lane's Mod. Eg. ii. 7), and

SALUTATION

the term " salam " has been introduced into our
own language to describe the Oriental salutation.

The forms of greeting that we have noticed, were
freely exchanged among persons of diflijrent i-anks
on the occasion of a casual meeting, and this even
when they were strangers. Thus Boaz exchanged
gieeting 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
been in regard to religion, the Jew of old, as tlie
]\Iohammedan of the present day, paying the com-
pliment only to those whom he considered "bre-
thren," i. e. members of the same religious com-
munity (Matt. v. 47 ; Lane,ii.8; 'isiehuhr, Bescript.
p. 43). Even the Apostle St. John forbids an
interchange of greeting where it im])lied 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
very considerable time ; the instances given in the
Bible do not bear such a character, and therefore
the prohibition addressed to persons engaged in
urgent business, " Salute no man by the way " (2 K.
iv. 29 ; Luke x. 4), may best be referred to the
delay likely to ensue from subsequent conversation.
Among the Persians the monarch was nevei- ap-
proached without the salutation " Oh, king ! live
for ever" (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"(pe> " hail !"
(Matt, xxvii. 29). The act of salutation was ac-
companied with a variety of gestuies expressive of
diflereut 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 l^istolary salutations in the period subsequent
to the 0. T. were framed on the model of tlie 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 peison 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 unfrequeut (Gal. i.
1, 2; Philem. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1). The term used
(either expressed or understood) in the introductory
salutation was the Greek X'^'P^'" '" ''^" 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 comiwsed the letter in the former
passage. A foi-m of prayer for spiritual meicies was
also used, consisting geno'ally of the terms " grace
and peace," but in the three Pastoral Epistles and
in 2 John, "grace, mercy, and peace," and in Jude
" mercy, peace, and love." The concluding saluta-
tion consisted ocrasionally of a translation of the
Latin valete (Acts xv. 29, xNiii. 30), but more ge-

h'h^.

b I'he Greek expression is evidently borrowed from the
Hebrew, the preposition ets not betokening the state into

which, but answering to the Hebrew 7, in which tlie
person departs.

SAMAEL

nerally of the term atrirafo/ioi, " I salute," or the
cognate substantive, accompanied by a prayer tor
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
salutation in the Epistle to the Hebrews is veiy
noticeable. [VV. L. B.]

SAM'AEL (2oA.a(Uir)A. : Salathiel), a variation
for (margin) Salamiel [Siielumiel] in Jud. viii. 1
(comp. Num. i. G). The form in A. V. is given
by Aldus. [B. F. W.]

SAMAI'AS CZafxaias : Scmekis). 1. She-
MAIAH the l.evite 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. (26/U€i'; Alex. 2e/ueias : om. in Vulg.) The
•' gieat Samaias," father of Ananias and Jonathas
(fob. V. 13).

SAMA'RIA(p-|pb', i.e. Shomeron ; Chald.

pIDE^' : Sa^uapeia, 'X^firjpdv, 'Zo/xdpwv'^ ; Joseph.

'Sajiidpeia, hut Ant. viii. 12, §5, 'XefJ-apewf : Sa-
maria), 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
its name. In the territory oi'iginally belonging to
the tribe of Joseph, about six miles to the north-west
of Shechem, there is a wide basin-shaped valley,
encircled with high hills, almost on the edge of the
great plain which borders upon the Mediterranean.
In 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 Hat 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
be the royal residence until Zimri burnt the palace
and perished in its ruins (1 K. xiv. 17 ; xv. 21, 33 ;
xvi. 6-18). ' Omri, who prevailed in the contest for j
the kingdom that ensued, after " reigning six years "
there, " bought the hill of Samaria ( ppb' "inn ; rh
opos TO ^efjLTtpdv) of Shemer ("iDtJ' ; 'Xffi-rjp, Joseph.
^efiapos) for two talents of silver, and built on
the hill, and called the name of the city which
he built, after the name of the owner of the hill,
Samaria" (1 K. xvi. 23, 24). This statement of
course dispenses with the etymology above alluded
to ; but the central position of the hill, as Herod
sagaciously 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).

SAMAEIA 1099

From the date of Omri's purchase, n.c. 925,
Samaria retained its dignity as the capital of the
ten tribes. Ahab built a temple to B;ial thei'e
(1 K. xvi. 32, 33); and from this circumstance a
portion of the city, possibly fortified by a separate
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. Ou the latter, mdeed, 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. 3.1
Some years afterwards the disti'ict 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 anu. Abr.- 1684), killed a large
portion of the inhabitants, and suffered the remainder
to settle at Shechem. [Shechem : Svchar.]
He replaced them by a colony of Syro-Macedonians,
and gave the adjacent territory ('Xafiapflris x^P")
to the Jews to inhabit (Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 4). These
Sj'ro- Macedonians occupiied the city until the time
of John Hyrcanus. It was then a place of consi-
derable importance, for Josephus describes it {A7it.
xiii. 10, §2) as a very strong city (iro'Ais oxvpu-
Tdrrf). John Hyrcanus took it after a year's siege,
and did his best to deiuolish 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
his Itinerary'' that there were upon the top of this
hill many fountains of water, and from these water
enough may have been derived to fill these trenches."
It should also be recollected that the hill of Samaria
was lower than the hills in its neighbourhood. This
may account for the existence of these springs.
Josephus describes the extremities to which the
inhabitants were reduced during this siege, much in
the same way that the author of the Book of Kings
does during that of Benhadad (comp. Ant. xiii. 10,
§2, with 2 K. vi. 25). John Hyrcanus' reasons
for attacking Samaria were the injuries which its
inhabitants had done to the people of Clarissa,
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 of
Alexander Jannaeus {Ant. xiii. 15, §4), and until

=* '['he prevailing LXX. form in the 0. T. is ^aixapeca, puip (Mai, Sco/oitopwi') ; Neh. iv. 2, Is. vii. 9, ^on6pov.
with the following renuirkable excfptions :— 1 K. xvi. 24. j i> No such passage, however, now exists in Beiijumin of
::itinepu,y . . . 2c^>;pw>/ (Mai, 2afi))pui/) ; Ezr. iv. 10, ^oixo- Tudola. See the editions of Ashcr and of Bolia.

1100

SAMARIA

I'ompey gave it back to the descendants of its
original inhabitants (ro7s oiK-qropffiv). These oIk^-
Topfs may possibly have been the Syro-Macedoiiians,
but it is moi'e 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 were
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 Sebaste,
Se/SacTTT) = 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 magniticent temple, dedicated to the
Caesar. It was colonised by 6000 veterans and
others, for whose support a most beautiful and
I'ich 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 maint;xined 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 ils troKiv
TTj'i '2,afiapeias. 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
Svbaste, 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 rh eOvos rrjs Sojua-
piias ; and the phrase in verse 25, " many villages
of the Samaritans," shows that the operations of
evangelizing 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 Koman colony there in the begin-
ning of the third century (Ulpian, Leg. I. de Cen-
sihus, quoted by Dr. Kobinson). Various specimens
of coins struck on the spot have been preserved,
extending from Nero to Geta, the brother of Cara-
calla (Vaillant, iu Numisin. Iinper., and Koris,
quoted by lieland). But, though the seat of a lio-
man colony, it could not have been a place of much
political imjiortance. We find in the Codex of
Theodosius, that by a. I). 409 the Holy Land had
been divided into Palaestina Piima, Secunda, and
Tertia. Palaestina Prima included the country oT
the Philistines, Samaria (the district), and the
northern part of .ludaea; but its capital was not
Sebaste, but Caesarea. In an ecclesiastical point of
view it stood rather higher. It was an episcopal
see probably as early as the third century. At
any rate its bishop was present amongst those of
Palestine at the Council of Niaiea, A.u. 325, and
subscribed ils acts as " Maximus (al. Mai'inus)

SAMARIA

Sebastenus." The names of some of his successors
have been preserved — the latest of them mentioned
is Pelagius, who attended the Synod at Jerusalem,
A.D. 536. The title of the see occurs iu the
earlier Greek Notitiae, and in the later Latin ones
(lieUmd, 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
I'etaining 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, tracei^ of
Idumaean magnificence. " A long avenue of broken
pillars (says Dr. Stanley), apparently the main
street of Herod's city, heie, 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 lavages of Shalmaneser or
of John Ilyrcanus. " 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 Keland, pp. 980-981).
Epiphanius is at great pains, in his work Adv.
Ilaereses (lib. i.), iu which he treats of the heresies
of the Samaritans with singular minuteness, to
account for the origin of their name. He interprets
it as D''"10K', (pvAaKes, or " keepers." The hill
on which the city was built was, he says, designated
Somer or Someron (2cDjurjp, ^wfiopaiv), 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 Ciuion,
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 ; Kaumer's Palastina, 144-148,
notes ; Van de Velde's St/ria 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 Oeog.
Dr. Kitto, in his Physical History of Palestine, pp.
cxvii., cxviii., has an interesting reference to and
extract from Sandys, illustrative of its topogi-aphy
and general aspect at the commencement of the
seventeenth century.

2. The Samaria named in the present text ot'
1 Mace. V. ij() {t7]p 2,afj.apiiav : Samarium) is evi-
dently an error. At any rate the well-known Sa-

SAMAKIA

1101

Bthind the citv are the mountam"! of Ephraim verging (
Ihe oiipnal sketch from T\hich this \-ie\\ is taken
permission.

mai'ia of the Old and New Testaments cannot be
intended, for it is obvious that Judas, in passing
from Hebi'on to the land of the Philistines (Azotus),
could not make so immense a detour. The true
correction is doubtless supplied by Josephus (^Aiit.
,xii. 8, §0), who has Marissa (i. c. 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
Gi'imm, Kurzg. Exeg. Hcmclh., on the passage).
Drusius proposed Shaaraim ; but this is hardly so
feasible as Maresha, and has no external support.

3. Samaria (ji "XafiapelTis x^P'^'i Joseph. x'^P«
'2,aiJ.api(ov ; Ptol. 2a/xopis, Sajuapeia: Samaria).

Samaritans (□"'J'"^pC^' : Sajuapeirai ; Joseph.
2ajuape7$).

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 tlie origin of the peojile to which
the latter is applied in the N. T. But a probable
solution of them may be gained by cai'eful 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 tei'm, a SAMARITAN
would be an inhabitant of the citij 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
O. 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

I the Plam of Sharon The Mediterranean Sea is
OS maile hj Wilham Tipping, Esq., in 1842, and

1 the furthest distance
engraved bj his kind

diminishing to the time of Shalmaneser, .so the
extent of the word Samaritan would have varied.

.Sam.\RIA at first included all the tribes over
which Jeroboam rnade himself king, whether east
or west of the river Joisdan. 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. 32), i. e., of course, the
cities of which Samaria was, or was to be, the head
01' capital. In other places in the historical books
of the 0. T. (with the e.xception 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 " captivit)' of Samaria and her
daughters" is a phi-ase found in Ezekiel (xvi. 53).
Hence the woi-d 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-Simeoii 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, atn'ied 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 secoird 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 carried them captive to As-
syria" (2 K. XV. 29). This would be a third

1102

SAIVIARIA

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 e;ist\vard, 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 pemianent 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 neighbouiiiig
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 lecognised by portions of Asher, Issa-
char, and Zebulun, and even of Ephraim and Ma-
nasseh (2 Chr. xxs. 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 rivei-
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 Amnion 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 progiess would
have been impracticable had the number of cities
and villages occupied by the persons then called
Samaritans been at all laige.

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.
x\ii. 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
tliey were wholly or only partially desolated, who
i-eplaced 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 oljserved that the language of Scripture

SAMARIA

admits of scarcely a doubt. " Israel was airried .
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, of
" 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 Assyi'ia. Besides, it was not an unusual thing
with Oiiental conquerors actually to exhaust a land
of its inhabitants. Comp. Herod, iii. 149, " The
Persians dragged [ffayrjvevcrai'Tfs) 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
(Tayriveveiv is described, and is compared to a
hunting out of the population ( eKdrjpeveiv). Such
a capture is presently contrasted with the capture
of other tenitories to which crayrivevetv was not
applied. Josephus's phrase in reference to the cities
of Samaria is that Shalnianeser " transplanted all
the people" {Ant. ix. 14, §1). A thieat against
.lerusalem, which was indeed only partially carried
out, shows how complete and summary 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 turneth it upon the face
thereof" (2 K. xxi. 13). This w;is uttered within
forty years after B.C. 721, during the reign of Ma-
nasseh. It must have derived much strength from
the recentness 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 Cuthali, 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 theieof."
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
naiTative 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 brought 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 Hebiew 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 Asnapper," either the
king himself or one of his generals. It was probably
on his invasion of Judah, in the reign of Manasseh,
about B.C. 677, that Esarhaddon discovered the

SAMARIA

impolicy of leaving a tract upon the very fi-ontiers
of that kingdom thus desolate, and deteimiued to
garrison it with foreigners. The foct, too, that some
of these foreigners came from Babylon would seem
to direct us to Esarhaddon, rather than to his grand-
father, Shalmaueser. It was only recently that
Babylon had come into the hands of the Assyrian
king. And there is another reason why 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 " Kphraim should
be broken that it should not be a people " (Is. vii. 8).
This was not etiectually 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 tiiken place, no hope. Josephus
{Ayit. X. 9, §7) expressly notices this difference in
the cases of the ten and of the two tiibes. The land
of tlie 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
five 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, which 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 e.xplaining 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 fathers, so do
they unto this day" (2 K. xvii. 41). This last
sentence was pi'obably inserted by Ezra. It sei-ves
two purposes : 1st, to qualify the pretensions of the
Samaritans of Ezra's time to be pure worshippers
of God — they weie no more exclusively His ser-
vants, than was the Roman empeior 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
I'emedy for it, is very similar, with the exception
that with liim they are afflicted with pestilence.

Such was the origin of the post-captivity or new
Samaritans — men not of Jewish extraction, but from
the farther East : " the Cuthaeans had formerly be-
longeil to the inner parts of Persia and Media, but
were then called ' Samaritans,' taking the name of
the country to which they were removed," savs
Josephus {Ant. x. 9, §7). And again he says (Aiit.
ix. 14, §3 j they are called " in Hebrew ' Cuthaeans,'
but in Greek ' Samaritans.' " Our Lord expressly
terms them aWoyevus (Luke xvii. 18); and Jo-
sephus' whole account of them shows that he believed
them to have been fiiToiKoi a\Xoe6ve7s, though,
as 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

SAMARIA

1103

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 tliey 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 oft' 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, giew 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 Xehemiah for an imlawful 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. Atit. 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 M3-cenae.
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 their
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

a " This fact," says Dr. Trench, " is mentioned by Ma-
krizi (see Dc Sacy's direst. Arabe, n. 159), who affirms
that it was this which put the .Jews on making accurate

1104

SAMARIA

own temple on Gerizim they considered to be much
superior to that at Jerusalem. There they sacri-
ficed a passov(!r. 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
of the Jews. The Law (i. e. the five books of Moses)
was their sole code ; for they rejected every other
book in the Jewish canon. And they professed to
observe it better than did the Jews themselves,
■ employing the expression not unfiequently, " 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.
The 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
true Israelites, descendants 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 hoUowness of their
pretensions. (They were greatly disconcerted at
their failure, and their dissatisfiiction probably led
to the conduct which induced Alexander to besiege
and destroy the city of Samaria. Shechem was
indeed their metropolis, but the destruction of Sa-
maria seems to have satisfied Alexaniler.) Another
instance of claim to Jewish descent appears in
the words of the woman of Samai'ia 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
Assyi'ia. They accused them of worshipping the
idol-gods buned long ago under the oak of Shechem
(Gen. xxxv. 4). They would have no dealings with
them that they could possibly avoid.'' " Thou art a
Samaritan and hast a devil," was the mode in which
tliey expressed themselves wlien 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, so far as the Jew could aft'cct his position,
excluded from lidpe of eternal life. The traditional
hatred in which the Jew held him is expressed in
Ecclus. 1. 25, 26, " Tiiere be two manner of nations
which my heart abhorreth, and the third is no
nation : they that sit on the mountain of Samaria ;

calculations to determine the moment of tlie new moon's
appearance (comp. SchoettKen's Um: Ilch. i. .'544)."

b This prejudice liad, of course, sometimes to give way
to necessity, for the disciples had gone to Sycliar to buy
food, while our Lord was talking witli the \\xinKUi of Sa-
maria by the well iifils suburl) (John iv. K). And from
Luke ix. 02, wt' Iciirii I hat the disciples wint liofore our

SAMARIA-

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 the .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
(aWoyevfis)^ who was a Samaritan. So, in His
well-known parable, a merciful Samaiitan is con-
trasted vi^ith the unmerciful priest and Levite. And
the very worship of the two races is described by
Him as ditferent 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 ))eople presei'viug their
identity, though seven centuries had rolled away
since they haii been brought from Assyria by Esar-
haddon, and though they had abandoned their poly-
theism for a sort of ultra Mosaicism ; a peo])le, 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 teiTitory had
been the battle-field of Syria and Egypt — still ])re-
served their nationality, still woi'shipped from
Shechem and their other impoverished settlements
towards their sacred hill ; still retained their na-
tionality, and could not coalesce with the Jews:

6^0? t' aXcKJid t' ey\ea5 ravToJ kut€1,
SLxo<rTaTovvT' av ov <j>C\(o^ n-potrei/ceVoij.

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 Cuthaean Samaritans, or that
it had ever been so. " Samaria," says Josephus,
(i>. /. iii. 3,. §4) " lies between Judaea and Galilee.
It commences from a village called Ginaea {Jenhi),
on the great plain (that of Esdraelon), and extends
to the toparchy of Acrabatta," in the lower part of
tlie territory of Ephraim. These points, indicating
the extreme noithern and the extreme southein
[larallels of latitude between which Samaria was
situated, enable us to fix its boundaries with tole-

Lord at His command into a certain village of the
Samaritans "to make ready" for Him. Unless, indeed
(though, as we see on both occasions, our Loiii's influ-
ence over them was not yet complete), we are to attribute
tliis partial aliandomnent of their ordinary scruples to
tiie change which His example had already wrought in
tliini.

SAMARIA SAMARIA 1105

rable certainty. It was bounded northward by tlie

range of hills which commences at iMount Carmel

on the west, and, after making a bend to the soutli-

west, runs almost due east to the valley of the

Jordan, forming the southern border of the plain ot

Esdi-aelon. It touched towards the sontli, as near!}'

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 ditferent from that cf Judaea. Both abound

in mountains and plains, and are suited for agricul-
ture, and productive, wooded, and full of fruits
botli 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 aittle there pro-
duce more milk than elsewhere. But the best
pi'oof of their richness and fertility is that both are
tliickly 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, I the purely Assyrian origin of the New Samaritans,
and there, on the destruction of the Temple on is that of Suicer, Reland, Hammond, Drusius in the
Gerizim, by John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9, (7/'!'iiC2/S'acr«, Maldonatus, Hengstenberg, Havernick,
§1), they built themselves a temple. The modern Robinson, and Dean Trench. The reader is referred
representative of Shechem is Nablus, a corrup- to the very clear but too brief discussion of the
tion of Neapolis, or the " Kew Town," built by subject by the last mentioned learned writer, in

dosian Code. This was so severely punished, that
they sank into an obscurity, which, though they
are just noticed by travellers of the twelfth and
fourteenth centuries, was scarcely broken until the
sixteenth century. In the latter half of that cen-
tury a correspondence with them was commenced
by Josejjh Scaliger. (De Sacy has edited two of
their letters to that eminent scholar.) Job Ludolf
received a letter from them, in the latter half of the
next century. These three letters are to be found in
Eichhorn's Repertoriuin fur Bihlisclie vnd Morgen-
Idndische Litteratur, vol. xiii. They are of great
archaeological interest, and enter very minutely into
the observances of the Samai-itan ritual. Among
other points worthy of notice in them is the incon-
sistency displayed by the wiiters in valuing them-
selves on not being Jews, and yet claiming to be
descendants of Joseph. See also De Sacy's Cor-
respondance dcs Sainaritains, &c., in Koikes et
Extr. des MSS. de la Biblioth. du Eoi, &c., vol.
xii. And, for more modern accounts of the people
themselves, Robinson's Biblical Researches, ii. 280-
311; iii. 129-30; Wilson's Lands of the Bible,
ii. 46-78 ; Van de Velde's Stfria and Palestine, ii.
296 seq. ; Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 240 ;
Rogers' Notices of the Modem Samaritans, p. 25;
Grove'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,
App. iii.

The view maintained in the above remai-ks, as to

Vespasian a little to the west of the older town which
was then ruined. At Nablus the Samaritans have
still a settlement, consisting of about 200 persons.
Yet they observe the Law, and celebrate the Passover
on 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 edit Alba minorem."
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 of
them took place under Vespasian (5. /. 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, who
was probably an apostate Jew. Epiphanius {adv.
Haereses, lib. i.), in the fourth century, considers
them to be the cliief and most dangerous adver-
saries of Christianity, and he enumei'ates the several
sects into which they had by that time divided
themselves. They were popularly, and even by
some of the Fathers, confounded with the Jews, in-
somuch that a legal interpretation of the Gospel
was described as a tendency to 2a^ap€iTt<r/Aos or
'lovSaXtT^iSs. This confusion, however, did not
extend to an identification of the two races. It was
simply an assertion that their extreme opinions were
identical. And previously to an outrage which
they committed on the Christians at Neapolis in the
reign of Zeno, towards the end of the fifth century,
the distinction between them and tiie Jews was
sufficiently known, and even recognised in the Theo-
VOL. ir.

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 aircJcrx'T/uct 'lov-
Saioji', but he stands almost alone among tlie
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 tlie 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 nfingled
race which drew its origin from the remnant of the
Israelites who were lelt 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" {Heidenthum 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
tor some years been the jiopular one, and even Dr.
Staulev seems, though quite incidentally, to have
admitted it (S. cj- P. 240). He does not, however,

4 B

1106 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

entei' 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
by the Samaritans, and the detemiination 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
Pentateuch ; Ebal ; Gerizim ; Shechem ;
SiCHEM ; Sychar.] [J. A. H.]

SAaiARITAN PENTATEUCH, a Recen-
sion of the commonly received Hebrew Text of the
l^Iosaic I.aw, in use with the Samaritans, and
written in the ancient Hebrew (Z'firj), or so-called
Samaritan chaiacter." This recension is found
vaguely quoted by some of the eai'ly Fathers of the
Church, under the name of "UaXawrarov '^fipa'i-
Khv rh Trapa Sa^apetTaTs," in contradistinction to
the "'E^pa'CKhv rb irapa 'lovSaiois •," fuither, as
" Samaritanorum Voluniina," &c. Thus Origen on
Num. xiii. !,...."& Kot aiira 4k tovtwv
'SafiapeiTcHv 'Efipa'iKOV fxeTe^aAo/xev ;" and on
Num. xxi. 13, . . . " & fV fi6vois rHv 'S.afj.apeirwv
tvpofiev," &c. Jerome, Prol. to Kings : "Samaritaui
etiam Pentateuchum Jloysis totidem (? 22, like the
" Hebrews, Syrians and Chaldaeans") litteris habent,
figuris tautum et apicibus disci'epantes." Also on Gal.
iii. 10, " quam ob causam " — (viz. ''ETriKaTaparos
iras ts ovK ifx/xivfi iu iraffi tois yeypafx/xevois,
being quoted there from Deut. xxvii. 26, where the
Masoretic text has only ON Q'^p'' H? Iti'N "IIIX
nXTH minn ''^3^ — "cursed be he that contirmeth
not"* the words of this Law to do them;" while the
LXX. reads ttus avdpw-KOS . . Traeri ro7s \6yois)
— " quam ob causam Samaritanornm Hehraea vo-
lumina relegens invem 73 scriptum esse ;" and he
forthwith charges the Jews with having deliberately

talien out the 73, because they did not wish to be
bound individually to all the ordinances : forgetting
at the same time that this same 73 occurs in the
very next chapter of the ^Masoretic text (Deut. xxviii.
15): — " All h\s commandments and his statutes."
Eusebius of Caesaiea 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. Pent, distinctly and con-
temptuously as a clumsily forged record : " You
have falsified" your Feidateuch," said R. Eliezer b.
Shimon to the Samaritan scribes, with reference to
a passage in Deut. xi. 30, where the well-undeistood
word Shechem was gratuitously inserted after " the
plains of Moreh," — "and you have not profited
aught by it" (comp. Jer. s'otah 21 b, cf. 17 ; Babli
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 n lorale (unknown, however,
according to Jer. Meg. 6, 2, also to the people of
Jerusalem). " Wito has caused you to blunder f
said R. Shimon b. Eliezer to them ; i-efening to their

" nNflu*^. I'yi. nnny 3n3, as distinguished

from i<^fy. n''ni'w-'N 303- Comp. Synb Zl b, Jer.
Meg. 5, 2 ; Tosifia .'Synli. 4 ; Synlioilr. 22 a, Meg. Jer.
1, 9, Sola Jer. 7, 2, sri.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

abolition of the Mosaic ordinance of marrying the
deceased brother's wife (Deut. x.xv. 5 ff.), — through
a misinterpretation of the passage in question, which
enjoins that the wife ot the dead man shall not be
"without" to a stranger, but that the brother
should marry her: they, however, taking nVinn
(=',>in?) to be an epithet of ntJ'K, " wife," trans-
lated " the outer wife," i. e. the betrothed only
{Jer. Jebam. 3, 2, Ber. R., &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 dclla 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
thei;e appeared a brief description of it by J. Mo-
rinus in his preface to the Roman text of the LXX.
Thi'ee 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 innumeiable 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 literal y and
theological conti-oversies : 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 Code.x, 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 Barbeiini 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 Gottia Library. A cojiy
of the entire ?j Pentateuch, with Targum (? Sam.
Version), in parallel columns, 4to., on parchment,
was brought from Ndblus by Mr. Grove in 1861,
for the Count of Paris, in whose library it is.
Single portions of the Sam. Pent., in a more or
less dettictive state, are now of no rare occuiTence
in Europe.

Respecting the external condition of these MSS.,
it may be observed that their sizes vary fi-om 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 tho>e
varieties of shape so frequent in the Masor. Text ;
such as majuscules, minuscules, suspended, inverted
letters, &c. Their material is vellum or cotton-
pnper ; 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, and perhaps Lulhcr,
has inserted the word all.

bAMAEITAN PENTATEUCH

accents, 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
dots placed one above the other, and by an asterisk.
A small line above a consonant indicates a peculiar
meaning of the word, an unusual form, a passive,

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1107

and the like : it is, in fact, a contrivance to bespeak
attention."* The whole Pentateuch is divided into
nine hundred and sixty-four pai'agraphs, or Kazzin,
the termination of which is indicated by these figures,
= , ,•.,■ or <. At the end of each book the numbev
of its divisions is stated thus : —

(250) 3") QiJIXhD l^Vp : p£i'N"in -|3D r\]r\ [Masoret. Cod.,

(200) DTix?:? '■ ■'Ji^'n " " [

(130) QiK'i'pc") nxD ,. »t^"''?trn .. .. C

(218) n"! ■-> " ^ymn .. .. [

(166) 1D1-P ■' '•C'Dnn .. .. C

12 Sidras (Parshioth), 50 Chapters].
11 „ 40 „ ]

10 „ 27 „ ]

10 „ 36 „ ]

11 .. 34 „ ]

The Sam. Pentateuch is halved in Lev. vii. 15
(viii. 8, in Hebrew Text), where the words "Middle
of the Thoiah " « are found. At the end of each JIS.
tlic yeai- 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 vei-y difficult to be conjectured when entirely
omitted, since the Samaritan lettei's afibrd 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
Nahlus bears — so the Samaritans pretend — the fol-
lowing inscription : — " I, Abisha, son of Pineh.is,
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
around it, by theChildi-en of Israel. I praise Jeho-
vah." (Letter of Meshalmah b. Ab Sechuah, Cod.
19,791, Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. Comp. Epist. Sam.
Sichemitarum ad Johum Ludolphion, Cizae, 1688 ;
Antiq. Eccl. Orient, p. 123 ; Huntingtoni Epist.
pp. 49, 56 ; Eichhorn's Repertorimii f. bihl. mid
morg. Lit., tom. ix., &c.) But no European' has
ever succeeded in finding it in this scroll, however
great the pains be.stowed upon the search (coniji.
Eichhorn, Einleit. ii. 132) ; and even if it had been
found, it would not have deserved the sliglitest
credence.

We have briefly stated above that the Exercita-
tiones of Morinus, which placed the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch far above the Picceived Text in point of ge-
nuineness, — partly on account of its agi'eeing in
many places with the Septuagint, and partly on
account of its superior " lucidity and hannony," —
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 'j 'I'ext,
the general preference for the LXX., the defective
stiite of Semitic studies, — as if, we say, all these put

d n^n and npn, ny and ny, inn and "inn.

'PN and by, h^ii^ and h^ii\ ir\p\ and xipv
t^ and l^, the suffi.\cs at the end of a word, the p with-
out a dagGsh, &c., are thus pointed out to the reader.

f It would appear, however (sec Archdeacon Tattam's
notice in the J 'artlienmi, Xo. 4, May 24, 1SG2), that Mr.
Levysolm. a person lately attached to the ilussian staff in

together were not sufficient to account for the phe-
nomenon that men of any critical acumen could ibi-
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 woik, especially in the first period of the dis-
pute : it was a controversial spirit which prompted
Morinus and hLs followers, Cappellus and others, to
prove to the Reformers what kind of value was to
be attached to their authority : the I'eceived ibrm 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 e.xpounded by the Roman. Church,
could be relied upon. On the- other hand, most of
the " Antimorinians" — De Muys, Hottinger, St.
Blorinus, Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeifl'ei-, &c. — ■
instead of patiently and critically examining the
subject and refuting their adversaries by arguments
which were within their reach, as tliey aie witliin
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 pei'iod, who proceeded
eclectically, rejecting many readings, and adoptina;
others which seemed prefeiable to those of the Old
Text. Houbigant, however, with unexampled igno-
rance and obstinacy, i-eturned to Morinus' fii-st 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 discu.s-
sion was taken up once more on the other side,
chiefly by Ravius, who succeeded in finally dispo.sing
of this point of the superiority {Exercitt. Fhil. in
Houhig. Prol. Lugd. Bat. 1755). It was from his
day forward allowed, almost on all hands, that the
•j\Iasoretic Text was the genuine one, but that in
doubtful cases, when theSamaritan had an " unques-
tionably clearer " reading, this was to be adojited,
since a certain amount of value, however limited,
did attach to it. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt.
Jahn, and the majoiity of modern critics, adhered
to this opinion. Here the matter rested until 1815,
when Gesenius {De Pent. Sain. Originc, Indole,

Jerusalem, /las found the inscription in question "going
through the middle of the bodj' of the Te.\t of the Deca-
logue, and extending through three columns." Consider-
ing that the Samaritans themselves told Huntington,
" that this inscription had been in their scroll once, but
must have been erased by some wicked hand," tliij
startling piece of information must be received with
extreme caution : — no less so than the other more or less
vague statements with respect to the labours and pre-
tended discoveries of Mr. Levvsohii. See note, p. 1113.

4 B li

1108 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

et Auctoritate) abolished tl;e remnant of the
authority of the Sam. Pent. So masterly, lucid,
and clear are his arguments and his proofs, that
there has been and will be no fuither question as
to the absence ot';dl 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 J eadei- at once that they are for the
most put mere blundeis, arising fjom an imperfect
knowledge of the fiist elements of grammai- and
exegesis. That others owe their existence to a studied
design of conforming ceitiiiii passages to the Sama-
ritiin mode of thought, speech, and faith — moj e
especiallv to show that the Mount Gerizim, upon
which their tenijile stood, was the spot chosen and
indiciited by God to Moses as the one upon which
He desired to be worshipped. e 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
titling up all apparent imperfections : — either by
lepetitions or b\' 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 nTin,
" There shall not be," into ITTin, " lice," 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

B For "in3S "He will elect" (the spot), the Sam.
always puts "Ifl^' " He has elected" (viz. Gerizim). See
below.

*> □''"lyC' "n"* niust be a misprint.

' Tliiis D^ is found in the Samar. for Dy of the Ma-

soretic T.; ni for T\'-'i 1^ fur 1" ; DrT'^X for Oi]/?^ '
riTllXJD fo"" m'SD' ^<^- '■ sometimes a 1 is put even
where the Heb. 1'. has, in accordance with the gram-
matical rules, only a short vowel or a sheva: — VJDIH '^

found for v:pii ; nv^iK for nv^N*.
" i3n:. on, "pxri, become i:n::s, non. rh^r\-

m Tjni becomes TiJOl ! DD^I is emendated into
rillO^I ; ^^'' (verb n"?) into nNT" ; 'he final } —of the
3rd pers. fem. plur. fut. into HJ .

° *J31E^is shortened into pV^. UTTI into J")''!!-

<• Masculine are made the words Qn? (Gen. xlix. 20)
"lytJ' (Deut. XV. 7, &c.), nJilD (('en. x.\.\h. 9); feminine
the words t»-ix (fi^^- xiii. 6), "ry] (Deut. xxviii. 25),
K'SJ (Gen. xlvi. 25, &c.) ; wherever the word lyj occurs
in the sense of " girl," a |~j is added at the end (Gen. xxiv.
14, &c.).

■" 31t^'^ Tl'Pn IIIK'^V " the waters returned conti-
niuUly," is transformed into ll"*! ID^H IIID'^V " they
returned, they went and they returned" (Gen. viii. 3).
Where the infin. is used as an adverb, e. g. pmH (Gen.
xxi. 16), " far off," it is altered into np^mHi " sh'' "'^^t
far awiy," which renders the passage almosi unintelligible.

•) Dny for Q-^iy (Gen. iii. Hi, 11); 1^' for n"?-) (xi.
Sf^) ; DmD\* for the collective 112^* (.nv. in); mOX'
" female servants," for niilDN i^^- t**) ; r\TWl12 N"l'l
ilDID O for the adverbial 3VJ (^''X- 15); TmH f'"'
Q'n*"12 (Ex. xxvi. 26, making it depend from ^^i?);
DLJ'?3, in the unusual sense of "from if (comp. 1 K. xvil.

SiVMARITAN PENTATEUCH

of Gesenius, who divides all these readings into eight
classes ; to which, as we shall afterwards show,
Frankel has suggested the addition of two or
three others, while Kirchheim (in his Hebrew
work JTlDIE^ ''Dn3} enumerates thirteen,'' which
we will naine hereafter.

1. The first class, then, consists of readings by
which emendations of a grammaticjil nature have
been attempted.

(a.) The quiescent letters, or so-called matres
lectionis, are supplied.'

(6.) The more poetical forms of the pronouns,
probably less known to the Sam., are alteied into
the more common ones.''

(c.) The -same propensity foi- completing appa-
rently incomplete forms is noticeable in the flexion
of the verbs. The apocopated or short future is
altered into the regular future.""

{d.\ On the other hand thepaiagogical letters 1 and
*' at the end of nouns, are almost univer.sally stiuck
out by the Sam. coirector ;° and, in the ignorance
of the existence of nouns of a common gender, he
has given them gendere according to his fancy .<>

(e.) The infin. absol. is, in the quaintest manner-
possible, reduced to the form of the finite veib.P

For obsolete or rare forms, the modern and more
common ones have been substituted in a great num-
ber of places. 1

2. The second class of variants consists of glosses
and interpretations received into the text : glosses,
moreover, in which the Sam. not unfVequently
coincides with the LXX., and which are in many
cases evidently derived by both from some ancient
Targum.'

3. The third class e.xhibits conjectural emen-

13), Is altered into n3?3D (Lev. ii. 2) ; plTl 's wrongly

put for *n (3rd p. s. m. of ^ifl == /ff^») ; IJ?. tlie obsolete
form, is replaced by the more recent "l^J? (Xum. xxi. 15) ;
the unusual fem. termination ^_- (comp. 70''3N)
?"'J''3X> ii^ elongated into 71^- ; inK' 's the emendation
for Vt^* (Deut. xxii. 1); 1-)n for "^T^Tl (Rent, xxxiii.
15), etc.

' nCJ'Nl tJ'^J^' " "13" *"d woman," used by Gen. vii. 2
of aniQials, is changed into n3pj1 "IDT- " "'^''^ ""'i
female;" VK3t^' C^i^"- ^'''^'- ^f*)' " liis haters," becomes
"ll^l-ljij, "his enemies;" for nQ (indefin.) is substituted
riDINiOi X"l^ "he will see, choose," is amplitied by a
i'7, " for himself ;" "lilil "liin is transformed iiUo "Ijn
11 J" "ID'S (Lev. xvii. 10); □y'p3 ^X 'h'pX "Ij^']
(Xum xxiii. 4), " And God met Bileam," becomes with
the S.im. '3 nX ''pX "IX'PO X iD"'1. " and an Angel
of the Lord found iiileam ; ' nt^'XH "PV (Gen. xx. 3;,
" for the woman," is amplified in so ni^'XH miX 7^.
" for the sake of the woman " fur ^13^71, from "133
(obsol., comp. tXSo)' i^ P**' 'T337' " those that are be-
fore me," in contradistinction to " those who will come
after me ;" "lypll, " and she emptied" (her pitcher into
the trough. Gen. xxiv. 20), has made room for *7^TiriV
"and she took down;' HOEJ* 'myi3, "^ ^^''1 "><'<'t
there" (.\. V., Ex. xxix. 43), is made Qj;' ^^lt^m3•
"I shall be [searched] found there;" Num. xxxi. 15,
before the words T^l'pl "pD Qn'''nn. " H>rve you spared
the life of every ftmalc V a n?37, " Why," is inserted
(lAX.); for XIpN niH'' DK' O C^*"'. xxxii. 3),
" If 1 call the name of Jehovah," the Sam. has U^1<
" In the name," etc.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

datioiis — sometimes tar from happy — of real or
imaginary difficulties in the Masoretic text.'

4. The fourth class exhibits readings in which a\>
parent deficiencies have been corrected or supplied
from paiallel passages in the common te.'it. Gen.
-wiii. '29, oO, for " 1 shall not do it," « " 1 shall not
destroy" " is substituted fiom Gen. xviii. 28, 31, 3'2.
Gen xxxvii. 4, VHX, " his brethren," is re])laced by
V33, " 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
])iouer nouns like 110*. Jethro, occasionally spelt
"in^ in the Hebrew text, Moses' tiither-in-law — a
man who, according to the Midrash (Sifri), had no
less than seve7i names ; yCJ'in'* (Jehoshua), into
which form it corrects the shorter yjj'in (Hoshea)
when it occurs in the Masoretic Codex. More fie-
quent still are the additions of single words and
short phrases inseiled from parallel passages, where
the Hebrew text appe;u-ed too concise:* — unneces-
sai-y, often excessively absurd interpolations.

5. The ffth class is an extension of the one im-
mediately preceding, and comprises larger phrases,
additions, and lepetitions from parallel passages.
Whenever anything is mentioned as having been
done or said previously by Moses, or wheie a com-
mand of God is related as being executed, the
whole speech bearing upon it is repeated again at
tull length. These tedious and always su]perfluous
repetitions are most frequent in Exodus, both in the
record of the plagues and in the many interpola-
tions from Deutejonomy.

6. To the Sixi/i class belong those "emendations"

accor
inio

" The elliptic use of "y^'', frequent both in Hebrew and
Ai'abic, being evidently unknown to the eraeudator, he
alters the -["pV ^JC^' ilXO p^jT (<^en. xvii. 17), "shall
a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old ':"
\nto-Ti^'\i^."s.ha.\llhesetV' Gen.xxiv.62, XI^D Nl-
" he came from going " (A. V. " from the way ') to the
well of Lahai-roi, the Sam. alters into ")3n703 X3>
" in or through the desert" (LXX., 6ia r^s cpij/xou). In
Gen. XXX. 34, "111213 M' )b in. " liehold, may it be

ding to thy word," the \^ (Arab. A) is transformed
J{p, "and if not — let it be like thy word." Gen.
xli. 32, □I'pnn niiEJ'in ?yi. " And for that the dream

was doubled," becomes 'n n''Jti-' T]?]}), "The dream
rose a second time," which is both uu-Hebrew, and
diametrically opposed to the sense and construction of
the passage. Better is the emendation Gen. xlix. 10,
IvJI rjO " from between his feet," into " from

T : - ' •• • f

amung his banners," V73T ^QJO- ^^- ^'^- ^^' ^" ^"^'
live of the Sam. Codd. read Tiyi u7)]}p, "for ever and
fojiiic?'," instead of "iy"|, the common form, "evermore."

Ex. xxxiv. 7, nj53^ K'? np3"l, " that will by no means

clear tlie sitiy' becomes Tlp^l 1/ Hpil, "and the inno-
cent to him shall be innocent," against both the parallel
passages and the obvious sense. The. somewhat difficult

■1SD' if>?^> " and they did not cease" (A. V., Num. xi.
25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural •ISDX'''
which we would venture to translate, " they were not
gathered in," in the sense of " killed : '' instead of
either the IJi'JSX' "congregated," of the Sam. Vers., or
Castell's " continue runt," or Houbigant's and Dathe's
" couvenerant." Num. xxi. 2S, the "IJ?, "Ai-" (Moab), is
emendated into "li?, " as far as," a perfectly meaningless

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1109

of passages and words of the Hebrew text which
contain something objectionable in the eyes of the
Samaritans, on account either of histoi'ical impio-
bability or ajjpaient want of dignity in the terms
ajiplied to the Creator. Thus in the Sam. Pent,
no one in the antediluvian times, begets his first
son after he ha-s 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 iffterwards 800 years, and "all his years were
9(32 years;" according to the Sam. he begot when
only 62 years old, lived afterwards 785 years, " and
all his years Avere 847." After the Deluge the
opposite method is followed. A hundred or fifty
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 ]isycholotjical and
chi'onological notions, altered the Text in the oppo-
site manner. [See Septdagint.] ) An exceedingly
important and often discussed emendation of this
class is the passage in Ex. xii. 40, which in oui
text reiids, " 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, [awe? their fathers who duelt in tlie land of
Canaan and in the land of Egypt — iv yrj AlyvTrrw
KoL iv yfj Kavadv] was four hundred and thirty
yeare :" an interpolation of very late date indeed.

reading ; only that the IJ?, " city," as we saw above, was
a word unknown to the Sam. The somewhat uncommon
words (Num. xi. 32), mL2t^' UTl? ']n'0^% "and they
(the people) spread them all abroad," are transposed into

ntiint;' nn^ ipnt^'''1. " a"'^ tl^^y slaughtered for
themselves a slaughter." Deut. xxviii. 37, the word

n?3D'7, "an astonishment" (A. V.), very rarely used in
this sense (Jer. xix. 8, xxv. 9), becomes D^V, " to a
name," i. e., a bad name. Deut. xxxiii. 6, Vri?P ^H'T
■|2DD. "May his men be a multitude," the Sam., with
its characteristic aversion to, or rather ignorance of, the
use of poetical diction, reads "ISDO ''^^'5 ^'"'''^' "May
there he from him a multitude,' thereby trying perhaps
to encounter also the apparent difficulty of the word
"IDDDi standing for " a great number." Anything more
absurd than the iriXD '" l'^'* place could hardly be
imagined. A few veroes further on, the uncommon use
of IP in the phrase j-ID-lp^ JD (Deut. xxxiii. 11), as
'' lest," "not," caused the no less unfortunate alteration
•ISD^iP) '•p. 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
" K'Ao will raise i/iw/i?"— barren alike of meaning and
of poetry. For the unusual and poetical '^N3^ (Deut.
xxxiii. 25; A. V. "thy strength"), "jiQI i* 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 |nSn 7]} T'Xn?.
" to give light upon the earth," are inserted frum ver. 17 ;

Gen. xi, 8, the word ?"=I.10-l "and a tower," is added

from ver. 4; Gen. xxiv! 22, nSN bV' "°" ^^^ ^^'^^"
(no.se), is added from ver. 47, so thai the fonner verse
reads " And the man took (npM for Ql^f)) a golden ring
' upon her face.' "

1110 SAMAKIJAN TENTATEUCH

Again, in (leu. ii. 2, "And God [? had] finished
('?2''1, ? pluperf.) on the seventh day," '•yntJ'n is
altered into '•JJ'K'n, " the sixth," lest God's rest
on the Sabbath-day might seem incomplete (LXX.).
In (Jen. x.\i.\. :>, 8, " We cannot, until all the flocks
be gathered together, and till they roll the stone
from the mouth of the well," D^"l1V. '' flocks,"
is replaced by D'^yil, " shepherds," since the flocks
coxild 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
conector would have made of Is. xxxvii. [not
xxxvi.] 36 : " And when they arose in the morning,
behold theij 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 " « — 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, i. 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 Elohiin, four times construed with the plural
verb in the Hebrew Pentateuch, is in the Sam-
aritan Pent, joined to the singular verb CGen. xx.
1.3, xx.xi. 53, XXXV. 7; Ex. xxii. 9); and further,
both anthropomorphisms as well as anthropopathisms
are carefully expunged — a practice very common in
later times.'' The last and perhaps most momentous

1 The gutturals and .dAcra- letters are frequently
changed :— t21"in becomes t^l"!^ (^en. viii. 4) ; ^^3 is
altered into ly^ (xxiii. 18) ; n^K* into y^^ (x.xvii. 19) ;
'•'^snt stands for ipnt Peut. xx.xii. 24) ; the n is changed
into n in words like Jn3. DTIQJ. which become Jn3.
D^n^J ; n is altered into y— IDH becomes "^QV- '^'^e
^ is frequently doubled (? as a mater lectionis) : 3''t3'>\T
is substituted for ^^DTl ; N"I"'''N i'"'' XT'Ji ; "'''Q f'^'' ''S-
Many words are joined togoUur :— "l"m~|JO stands for
"im "ID (Kx. XXX. 23); ]x:nD for JX pD (Gen.xli.
45); D1fi-|J "in is always □'•t'l-lJ-in- The pronouns
rlN and I^X, 2nd p fcm. sing, and plur., are changed into
"'^^^ priN (ttie obsolete Heb. forms) respectively ; the
suir. Tj into -|X ; \. into "]"' ; the termination of the 2nd
p. s. fem. praet., 'Pr, becomes ^T\, like the first p.; the
verbal form Aphel is used for the Hiphil; T|"l!DTN for
^mDtn ; the medial letter of the verb "|"y is sometimes
retained a.s J{ or ^, instead of being dropped as in the Heb.
Again, verbs of the form pl'v have the > frequently at the
end of the itjfin. fut. and part., instead of the H- Nouns of

the schema 7Dp ( 7!1N, kc.) are often spelt P'tSp, into

which the form /IJOp is likewise occasionally trans-
formed. Of distinctly Samaritan words may be men-
tioned : "in (Gen. xxxiv. 31 )=:"I''K. yT} (Chald.), " like ;"

DTin. f"i- Heb. onin. -seai;- nniba. "as though

it buddP.I," becomes nmDN3 = J'"'S- nntQN "ID;

SABIARITxlN PENTATEUCH

of all intentional alterations is the constant change
of all the "in3^, " God will choose a spot," into
"inn, " He has chosen," viz. Gerizim, and the well-
known substitution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut.
xxvii. 4 (A. V. r>): — " 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.
Gerizim), and there shalt thou build an altar
unto the Lord thy God," &c. This passage gains a
certain interest from Whiston and ICennicott having
charged the Jews with corrupting it from Gerizim
into Elxil. This supjaosition, however, was met by
Rutherford, Parry, Tychseu, Lobstein, Verschuii',
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 prima
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, imiriediately after
the Ten Commandments, the following insertions
froiTi 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 ]\Iount Geririm
. . . and there shalt thou build an altar . . . ' That
mountain ' on the other side Jordan by the way
where the sun goeth down ... in the champaign
over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh, ' over
ai/ainst 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

DDn. "wise," reads Di3n; "i^. "spoil," ny? m©';.

" days," nJDi\

^ nJDn?JD ^''H' " 'nan ot war," an expression used
of God (Ex. XV. 3), becomes "Q TlHII' "liero of war,"
the former apparently of irreverent import to the .Sama-
ritan ear; for ',-[ Sl{< )^'])> (Deut. xxix. 19, A. V. 20). P
lit. "And the wrath (nose) of the Lord shall smoke,"
'n 51 N inV " 'b^ wratli of the Lord will be kindled," is
substituted; '•p~i)r\'0 "IIV (Deut. xxxii. 18), "the rock
(God) which begat thee," is changed into "l^^nJD TlV-
" the rock which glorifies thee ;" Gen. xix, 12, D^^'JXn.
" the men," used of the angels, has been replaced by
Q'l^j^TJQpl. " the angels." Extreme reverence for the
patriarchs changed Tnj^, •' Cursed be their (Simeon and
Levi's) anger," into "I'l'lX' " brilliant is their anger "
(Gen. xli.x. 7). A flagrant falsification is the alteration,
in an opposite sense, which they ventured in the passage
nOab ptJ''' 'n 'T''^^ " The beloved of God [Ben-
jamin, the founder of the Judaeo-Davidian empire, hate-
ful to the Samaritans] shall dwell securely," trans-
formed by them into the almost senseless 'H "I^ T*
nO!2^ pt?*''' " ^** hand, the /lanct of God will rest [if
Hiph. : J3t^\ ' will cause to rest '] securely " (Deut. xxxiii.
12). Reverence for the Law and the Sacred Records gives
rise to more emendations: — V^'20!3 (f^eut. xxv. 12,
A. v. 11), "by his secrets," becomes Tlt^'^ll, " by liis
fiesh;" njPJE^''*, " coibit cum ea" (Deut. xxviii. 12),
nOy 2'D^'', " concumbet cum ea;" jp'i'pCi'n 37D'?.
" to the dog shall ye throw it" (Ex. xxii. 30), "[^K^n
vCn. " .vc sli.all indeed throw it [away]."

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

they too liave since been, all but unanimously,
rejected.': (1.) Al'tei the words, " And Cain spobu
(■lOS''1) to his brother Abel" (Gen. iv. 8.), the
Sam. adds, " let us go into the field," ^ in ignorance
of the absol. use of "lOX, " to -say, speak" (comp.
Kx. xi.\. 25; 2 Chr. ii. 10, xx.xii. .34), and the
absol. ly) (Gen. i.x. 21). (2.) For "inX (Gen. xxii.
VS) the Sam. reads IHH, i. e. instead of" bi^hiiid
him a ram," " 07ie ram." (3.) For D"l3 11011
(Gen. xlix. 14), "an ass of bone" i.e. a strong
ass, the Sam. has Dn3 "lIDn (Targ. DlJ, Syr.

^^^-

V. 14), "he
Sam. reads

). And (4.) for p1''1 (Gen. x

forth his trained servants," the

pT*1, " he numbered."

We must briefly state, in concluding this por-
tion of the subject, that we did not choose this
classification of Gescnius because it appeared to us
to be either systematic (Gesenius says himself:
" Ceterum facile peispicitur complures in his esse
loctiones quarum singulas alius ad aliud genus re-
ferre forsitan malit ... in una vel altera lectione ad
aliam classem referenda hand 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-
foundeil 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 olil 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. ;« ignorance of the use of the abl. absol. ;'
(jalileanisms, — to which also belongs the permuta-
tion of the letters Ahevis (comp. Erub. 53, "IDPI,
"1J3X, "llDy), in the Samaritan Cod. ; the occasional
softening down of the S into h,^ of 3 into 3, ^f
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.' 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 : —

1. Dnnj in rhvToh D''''i3t:"i msDin. [Ad-
ditions and alterations in the Samaritan Pentateuch
m favour of ]\Iount Gerizim.]

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1111

2. mx'po'? mSDin. [Additions for tlic i.ur-
pose of con-,[)letii.M.J

3. "l"lX!2. [('ommentary, Lilosses.]

4. □'':^:3m C'^yan Cll'pn. [change of verbs
and moods. ]

5. niOKTI '!]'hn. [Change of nouns.]

(.!. HNIt^'n. [Kmendation of seeming irregu-
larities by assimilating forms, &c.]

7. nVnii^ri milOn. [Permutation of letters.]

8. n'''''l3D. [Pronouns.]

9. pO. [Gender.]

10. DliiDl^n mTllX. [Letters ad.led.]

11. DnTi nVrilN. [Addition of prepositions,
conjunctions, articles, kc.J

12. insi l^inp. [Junction of separated, and
separation of joineil words.]

13. d'pIJ? ni?0''. [Chronologic.-vl 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 au examination of the Codices since Ken-
nicott — who can only be said to have begun the
\voi-]j — 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 consequeirce 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 Aye 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 history of the Samaritans
remains involved in the obscurities of which a
former article will have given an .account; (2) we
are restricted to a small number of compai-atively
)-ecent 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 constifuant ") ; — so long must we have a
variety of the most divergent opinions, all based on
"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 : —

<: Keil, ki the latest edition of his Introd. p. 590, note 7,
says, " Even the few variants, which Gesenius tries to
prove genuine, fall to the ground on closer examina-
tion." .

* £. 0- mpn for mp'' (^x. xn. 48) ; nt;'yi f?a''

(Ex. XXXV. 10).

' E.O- nDT for "113* (Ex.xiii. 1.3); ^Qy^ lor Qin
(Num. XV. 35).

g E.g. P|-,nl for fl-im (Gen. viii.22); ^in for py
'..Gen. xxxvi. 2a^ ; f|NCn for ir|nt;'n 'T-'<'V ^^i. HJI, &c.

'^ K'llT'l for £i>DnM CGen. xxxi. 35); nStJ'J for

naK': (ex. xv. ho. :

i Gen. xxiii. 2, after yaiS^H Dnpa the words ^^
pj^y .ire added; xxvii. 27, after nlt^'n ^"^^ "'"'''^ ^'^
is found (LXX.); xliii. 28, the pbr.-ise t^'1i<^ "1112
Qipi'pfs';) 5<inn is inserted after theEtbnach ; xlvii. 21,

Q''"i2yS "loyn, an^ ^x. xxxn. 32, ^^j^n s^t^'n dn

■^^ on is r«id. An exceedingly difScult ,ind un-IIebrew
passage is found in I'lx. xxiii. 19, reading HCJ? "iS

1112 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

(1.) The Samaritan Pentateuch came into the
hands of the Samaritans as an inheritance from the
ten tribes whom they succeeded — so tlie popular
notion runs. Of this opinion are J. Morinus, Waltoii,
Cappellus, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bauer,
Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, Mazade, Stuart, Davidson,
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 E.\ile, 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 Hebiew 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
those.

(c.) The Sam. letters, avowedly the more ancient,
are found in the Sam. Cod.: therefore it was written
before the altei ation 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 R. Kirchheim [Ccmna
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 charactei-, from the ancient copies written in
so-called Samaritan, occasionally mistook Samaritan
letters of similar form.'' And since our Sam. Pent,
has those difficult readings in common with the
l\Ias. Text, that otliev moot point, whether it was
copied from a Hebrew or Samaritan Codex, would
thus appear to be solved. Its constant changes
of T and 1, ^ and 1, H and PI — letters which
are similar in Hebrew, but not in Samai'itan —
have been long used as a powerful ai'gument 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
nature of the arguments on either side, that the last
word has nob yet been spoken in the matter.

(a.) There existed no religious animosity what-
soever between Judah and Israel when they sepa-
i-ated. 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, onlv dates from the moment when the latter

k E. g.. Is. xi. 15, C'lyn instead of D^VQ (adopted by
Oesenius in Thes. p. 1017 o, wiibout a mention of its
L.ource, which he, however, distinctly avowed to Rosen-
mliller— conip. £^"3, p. lOY, note J^); Jer iii. 8, XINI
instead of {{"ini ! ^ *^"'- '^•'''^'- ''- DHni f'^"" DPINI;

Ezr. vi. 4, rnn for NTH; i'>.. x>:ii. 20, innjiTi foi-

innCiTl ; Ji'dp;. XV. ■M, □'r-|t»»y— Sumson's reign during
the time of tlie Philistines being given as twenty years

SAMAEITAN PENTATEUCH

refused to recognise the claims of the former, of
belonging to the people of God, and rejected their
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 the
Jews should yet have refused to receive them as
equals is no more surprising than that the Sama-
ritans fi'om 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 /cot' e|oxr)i'.

(6 ) Their not possessing any other book of the
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 schjsm, because many psalms
of David, writings of Solomon, cSic, 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 writers 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 inti-o-
duced by Ezra after the return from the Exile, but
came into use at a much later period. The Samari-
tans might thei-efore 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 Israel in Ihri writing and the Holy
(Hebrew) language: it was again given to them
in the days of Ezra in the Ashnrith writing and
Aramaic language. Israel then selected the Ashurith
writing and the Holy language, and left to the He-
diotes ('iSitoToi) the Ibri writing and the Aramaic
language. Who are the Hediotes ? The Cuthim
(Samaritans"). What is Ibri writing ? The Libo-
naah (Samaritan")." It is well known also that
the Maccabean coins bear Samaritaii 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 tlie
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 oi forty (comp. Ja: Sot. 1), accounted for by the J2
(numerical letter for forty) in the original being mistaken
for 3 (twenty). Again, 2 Chr. xxii. 2, forty is put in-
stead of tu-enty (comp. 2 Iv. viii. 26); 2 K. xxii. 4, Qn^l
for -If!'''! ; Ez. iii. 12, ^'\'^2 fo>" DnS- ^^- :— "" ""^^"^
letters— JTi; and <{n. A- and J\; 2 a"d % "s and ^—
rospmbling each other very closely.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

2 K. xvii. 24-33), and the immense number of
readings common to the LXX. and this Code,
against the Masoietic Text.

(3.) Other, but very isohvted notions, are those of
Morin, Le Clerc, Poncet, &c., that the Israelitish
priest sent by the king of Assyria to instruct the
new inhabitants in the rehgion of the country
brought the Pentateuch with him. Further, that
the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production of
an impostor, Dositheus (^NtODIT in Talmud), who
lived during the time of ihe Apostles, and who
falsified the sacred lecords in order to prove that he
was the Messiah (Ussher). Against which there
is only this to be observed, that there is not tiie
slightest alteration of such a nature to be found.
Finally, that it is a very late and faulty recension,
made after the Masoretic Text (sixth 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
I'lzra, and refers to the Talmudical p;\ssage oi Nedar.
37 ; " And he read in the Book of the Law of
God — this is Mikra, the Pentateuch ; ^"lIQD, ex-
planatory, this is Targum." [Versio>\s (Targum)."]
Considering that no Masorah fixed the lettej-s 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 about in 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 yetj, and the Sam. Pent,
are : —

1. That the LXX. have translated from the Sam.
(De Dieu, Selden, Hottinger, Hassencamp, Eichhorn,
&c. ) .

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 afterwai'ds obtained public
authority in Palestine ; that however very many
wilful corruptions and interpolations have crept in
in later times (Gesenius).

4. That the Samar. 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 iu number and of so

"" The original intention of the Russian Government to
publish the whole Codex iu the same manner seems to
have been given up lor the present. We can only hope
that, if the work is ever taken up again, it will fall into
mo.'-e competent ban\j5. Mr. Levi'sohu's Introduction,

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1113

unnnportant a nature that they cannot be adduced
as any argument whatsoever.

The following is a list of the JISS. of the Sam.
Pent, now in European Libraries [Kennicott] : —

No. 1. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., fol.. No. 3127.
Perfect, except tlie 20 fiist and 9 last verses.

No. 2. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to., JS'o. 3128,
with an Aiabic version m Sam. characters. 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. Oxford (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 ; 2 1 chapters
obhterated.

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 (Peiiesc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 1.
Recent MS. containing the Hebr. and Sam. Texts,
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 (Harl. 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. Genfev.). Of little
value.

No. 13. Rome (Peir. and Barber.) Vatican,
No. 106. Hebi-. 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 veiy
doubtful.

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. With
Version.

Printed editions are contained in the Paris and
Walton Polyglots; and a sepaiate reprint from
the latter was made by Blayney, Oxford, 1790. A
Facsimile of the 20th ch. of Exodus, from one of
the Nahlus MSS., has been edited, with portions of
the corresponding Masoretic text, and a Russian
Translation and Introduction, by Levysohn, Jeru-
salem, I860."'

II. Versions.

1. Samaritan. — The origin, author, and age of the
Samaritan Version of the Five Books of Moses, has
hitheito — so Eichhorn quaintly observes — "always
been a golden apple to the investigators, and will very
probably remain so, until people leave off venturing
decisive judgments upon histoi'iail subjects which

brief as it is, shows him to be utterly \\ anting both in
scholarship and in critical acumen, and to be, moreover,
entirely unacquainted with the fact .that his new dis-
coveries have been disposed of some hundred and fifty
years since.

1114 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

no one has recorded in antiquity." And, indeed,
modern investigatoi-s, keen as they have been, have
done little towards the elucidation of the subject.
According to the Samaiitaiis themselves (Do Sacy
3Iein. 3 ; Paulus; Winer), their high-priovst
Nathaniel, who died about 20 B.C., is its author.
Gesenius puts its date a few years after Clirist.
JuynboU thinks that it had long been iu use in
the second post-Christian century. Frankel places
it in the post-JIohammedan time. Other inves-
tigators, date it from the time of Esarhaddon's
priest (Sehwarz), or either shortly before or after
the foundation of the temple on Mount Gerizim.
It seems certain, howevej-, that it was composed
before tlie 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.

la 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 Zidoniaus call Hermon J*1K>
(Shirion), and the Amorites call it T'Jti' (Shenir;."
The translator deriving JHti' from "Mi^ " prince,
master," rendei's it J21 " masters ; " and finding
the letters reversed in the appellation of the Amor-
rites as "1"'3E^*, reverses also the sense in his version,
and translates it by " slaves " innyC^O ! 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

Onkelos in Polyglott. Num. vi

'pNnc* ''J3 ny ^So : nD'-o'p ^:^'^D oy nin> b'pDi

hn -\v pTiyi mn -idhd : T\\r\> onp -iro'? t^ini

nnriD "p^i Tit:''' vh pTiy "lom "pni mn "lom

■bo''' x"? pK'-'nM i^^'Di pnjyi Tit:'^ vh viiv

liut 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, sutfeied 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-

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

to make it look Samaritan. Occasionally he is
misled by the orthography of the original :
; N'lDX p DX, "If so, where . . .?" he renders
ntJIX p DX, "If so, I shall be wrath:" mistak-
ing X1DX for 12X, from fjX " auger." On the
whole it may be considered a very valuable aid
towaids the study of the Samar. Text, on account
of its ^'ery 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 leligious notions, or for the
sake of explanation. " We pray " — so they wiite
to Scaliger — " every day in tlie morning and iu the
evening, as it is said, the one lamb shalt thou prp-
pare iu 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' (TW^'^) in the field,"
by^"and Isaac went to pray (nX?^D?) in the
field." " And Abraham rose in the morning
(^p1IH)," is rendered v^*2, " in the prayer,"
&c. Anthropomorphisms are avoided. " The
image (DJIDrij of God" is rendered flCyj, '' the
glory." mn^ ''3, " the mouth of .Jehovah," is
transformed into nin* "lOVO, " the word of
Jehovah." For U'^rh^, "God," HOx'pD,
"Angel" is frequently found, &c. A great diffi-
culty is offered by the proper names which this
version ol'ten substitutes, they being, in many
c;ises, less intelligible than the original ones." The
similarity it has with Onkelos occasionally amounts
to con:,plete identity, for instance —

Sam. Vers, in Barherini TrigloU.

" A list of the more remarkable of these, in the case of
geographical names, is subjoined : —

Gen. \i\\. 4, for Ararat, Sarendib, n^'TJID-

X. 10, „ Shinar, Tsofah, HQIV Q 2obah).

11, „ Asshur, Astun, TltOOy.

— „ Rehoboth, .Satcan, pt^D (?Sittacene).

— „ Calah, Laksah, T\Q\h-

12, „ Resen, Asfah, n2Dy-
30, „ Mcsha, Mesbal, 73DD-

si. 9, „ Babel, Liiak, p'p^^.
xiii. 3, „ Ai, Cefrali, n"lD3 (•' Cephirah, .losh.

ix. 17).
xiv. 5, „ Ashteroth Kamaim, Afiiiith Karniah,

— „ Ham, Lishali, nL*'V-

— «, „ Id !'ar..n, Pelisliali, fa-., Ht^'S^ DTID

hiir\2^> '•n ny hht:> : id^d'? nii'in ny mn'' ^^?oi

TM •r^):h t^^ns'' -is nnx ix "in: \\rh n?3''m

''Dn '^'V cmi -ion p : r\'\r\h n-iTi-i?D'p inj

l^n^y rrw mo b^i xnc"' x*? omn ''oni -lom
.'pnM x*? pc^'un pn'-Di pnjyi nnc'^ xb

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 monograph, De Versionis
Pent. Sam. Indole, &c., Leipzig, 1817.

2. Ti ^ajxapeiTiKSv. The hatred between the

Gen. xiv. 14, for Dan, Banias, DX''33'

— 15, „ Hobah, Fogah, nJID-

— 17, „ Shaveh, aiifneh, HjSO-

XV. 8, „ Euphrates, Shalmali, HXO'PC'-

— 20, „ llephaim, Chasah, HXDn-
XX. 1, „ Gfr^ir, Askclun, JlPpOy-

xxvi. 2, „ Mitsraim, Netik, plQJ (.' Exodus).

xxxvi.8,9,&c. „ Seir, Gablab, nS^J (J^bal).

37, „ Rehobotb, Fathi, 1^2.

Num. xxi. 33, „ Bashan, Bathnin, pjni (Batanaoa).

xxxiv. IU, „ Shepham, 'Abamiab, rT'O^y (-^pa-
maea).

U, „ Shepham, 'Afamiah, nVOSy-

Dcut, ii. !), „ Ar (ly), Arshah, nC'IX-

iii, 4, „ Argob.Rigobaah, nX31il''-| (P«7«^a).

— 17, ,, Chinnereth, Gene.sar, ~ID33-

iv. 48, „ Sion, Tur Tclga, XJ'PH lltO ('''Ix"'
et Te!j).

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

Samaritans and the Jews is supposed to have caused
the 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 Oreeic Version of the Sam. Pent., preserved in
some MSS. of the LXX., together with portions of
Aquila, Symmacluis, Theodotion, &c., is accounted
for. These fragments are supposed to be alluded to
by the Greek Fathers under the name 'SauapeiTLKuf.
It is doubtful however whether it ever existed (as
Gesenius, Winer, Juynboll, suppose; in the shape of
a complete translation, or only designated (as Cas-
tellus, Voss, Herbst hold) a certain number of scholia
translated from the Sam. Version. Other critics
again (Kavernick, Hengstenberg, &c.) see in it only
a corrected edition of certain piissages of the LXX.

3. In 1070 an Arabic Version «f the Sam. Pent,
was made by Abu Said in Egypt, on the basis of
tlie 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,
1850-5-1-, &c. It appears to have been drawn up
from the Sam. Text, not from the Sam. Version ;
the Hebrew words occasionally lemaining unal-
tered in the translation." Often also it renders
the original difi'erently from the Samar. Version.?
Principally noticeable is its excessive dread of as-
signing to God anything like human attributes,

physical or mental. For QTl'pK iDW, "God,"

we find (as in Saadiah sometimes) ^jj| .*)iV*o
" the Angel of God ;" for " the eyes of God " we
have (Deut. ix. 12) ^| ,jda>5)^^^ "the Be-
holding of God." For " Bread of God :" . M, " the

necessary," &c. Again, it occasionally adds ho-
nourable epithets 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.

III. Samaritan Literature.

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 . Ckronicon Samaritanum. — Of the Pentateuch
and its Versions we have spoken. We have also men-
tioned that the Samaritans have no other book of our
Pieceived Canon. " There is no I'rophet but ]\Ioses "
is one of theii- chief dogmas, and tierce are the in-
vectives in whicli they indulge against men like

Samuel, "a Magician and an Infidel," Ju i {Chron.

o E. g. E.\. xiii. 12, Dni "IDS h'2 (Sam. Ver. ^3
Dm TlinS) remains^U ^ : xxi. 3, ^£^'N bVI
(Sam. Ver. nnX inDD) '^ given ^\^\ Jjtj.

p Thus n"T'y> ''™- ^'i-"^- 11 (Sa'"- ^'^i- Hmp. "liis

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1115

8am.); 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, ilfem. 4) ; Ezra "cursed
for ever" {Lett, to Ilimtini/ton, kc). 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 to
have found favour in their eyes ; but the Book
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 Chronicoii Samaritanum ( m^ ^ ^ %Xjm
, . »j /.T-»)' ^S"*- 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 (i. 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. 1362-1.513) ;— 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 " Isiael " 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 Eh, " the seducer,"
which then follows, and Samuel " a sorcerer," the
account by a sudden transition runs oil' to Nebuchad-
nezzar (ch. 45), Alexander (ch. 46), and Hadrian
(47), and closes suddenly at the time of Julian the
Apostate.

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 fi-om 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 {%. 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. Tlie
whole Dispeision now assembled, and the Jews said,
"We will now go up into the Holy City (Jeru-

city"), the Arab, renders sokC > Cicn. xli. 43, "["I^K
(Sam. Ver. W-^ = K^puf), the Arab, traiislates i_y^\

'1 A word, it may be observed by the way, taken Ijy the
Mohiimmedans from the Kabbinical ("Ip^y^) ~12"|3-

1116 SAMAEITAN PENTATEUCH

salem) and live theie in unity." But the sons of
Harun (Aarou) and of Joseph (i. e. the priests and
the Samaritans) insisted upon going to the " Mount
of Blessing," Genzim. The dispute was refened to
tlie king, and while the Samaritans proved their
case from the books of Moses, the Jews grounded
their preference for Jerusalem on the post-JIosaic
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 Zeru babel respectively, — charged the other with
basing its claims on a forged document, the sacred
books of each party were subjected to the ordeal
of tire. 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 AbuT Fatah.' This comprises the history of the
Jews and Samaritans from Adam to A.H. 756 and
798 (a.d. 1So5 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. Bab.) exempts
the whole of Palestine 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 leara the
dillerence between the Law of the Samaritans, and
that of the Jews. He therefore bade both send him
some of their elders. The Samai'itans delegated
Ahrou, Sumla, and Hudmaka, the Jews Eleazar only.
The king assigned houses to them, and gave them
each 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 difierences chietly turned
upon two points. (1.) God Aati 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 D1 v, " to the
day of vengeance and reward," the Jews DpJ ''?,
" Mine is vengeance and reward " — which left it
uncertiiin whether that reward was to be given
hjre or in the world to come. The king then asked
what was their opinion about the Jewisli prophets
and their writings, and they leplied, " Either they

^_^LJ! Qj*«^^ ^•i^i:^-i^ j^Oj^Ji ^\

^^y*.y^\ ^^^^^ i\V>d.\.\ Imp. Library, Paris).

Two copies in Berlin Library (Pclermaun, Koseri)
recently acquired.

SAMAEITAN PENTATEUCH

must have said and contained what stood in the
Pentateuch, and then their saying it again was super-
fluous; or more; or less:" either of which was again
distinctly piohibited in the Thora; or finally they
must have clianged the Laws, and these were un-
changeable." A Greek who stood near, observed that
Laws must be adapted to difieient 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 sti'ictly enjomed, not even to approach
Mount Gerizim. There can be no doubt that tliere
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 this
chronicle — the original text with a German trans-
lation — is given by Schnuirer in Paulus' Keue
Repertorium, 1790, 117-159.

3. Another " historical " work is the ,_XjS
ftlajM^S on the history and genealogy of the
patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, attributed to Moses
himself; perhaps the same which Petermann saw
at Nablus, and which consisted of sixteen vellum
leaves (supposed, however, to contain the history of
the world down to the end). An anonymous recent
commentarv on it, A.H. 1200, a.d. 1784, is in the
Bnt. Mus.'(Xo. 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 Commentmies upon the whole or
parts of their Pentateuch, by Zadaka b. JIanga 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 Eeligion, on the Nature of the Divine
Being, on Man, on the Worship of God ; by A.min
Eddin Abu'l Baracat, On the Ten Commandiitents ;
bv Abu'l Ha-ssan Jbn El Markum Gonajem ben
Abulfaraj' ibn Chatar, On Penance ; by Muhaddib
Eddin Jussuf Ibn Salamah Ibn Jussuf Al Askari, An
Exposition of the Mosaic Lairs, &c., &c. Some granr-
matical works may be further mentioned, by Abu
Ishak Ibrahim, On the Hebrew Language; by Alai

Said, On reading the Hebrew Text { ^^Wi
\jJi#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
compassionate.

" Praise be unto (iod for His help, and 1 ask for
His guidance towards a clear exposition. 1 have

• Compare the well known dictum of Omar on the
Alexandrian Library (Gibbon, cb. 51).

' ^p\yuJ\ ^^ (13th century, Bodi.).

" Under tliL- title. \ ^1 r^ ^-.^lAiJ! cjLuLT

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

resolved to hiy down a few rules for the proper
manner of reading the Holy Writ, on account of the
diffeience which I found, with respect to it, among
oLir co-religionists — whom may (jod make numerous
ami 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 !

" fiule 1 : — With all their discrepancies about
dogmas or religious views, yet all the confessors of
the Hebrew religion agiee in this, that the D of
the first pers. (sing, perf.) is always pronounced
with Kasra, and that a * follows it, provided it has
no suffix. It is the same, when the suffix of the
plural □. is added to it, according to the unanimous
testimony of the MSS., &c."

The trciitise concludes, at the end of the 12th
Canon or Kule : —

" 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
impei'ative in the passage (Ex. lii. 13), v nDSI
1Dt^' riD — ' 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 tjeai, viva voce. And
Iilessed 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 at
nuptials, circumcisions, burials, and the lil^e. We
subjoin a few specimens from MSS. in the British
JIuseum, transcribed into Hebrew characters.

The following is part of a Litany for the dead : —

Lord Jehovah, Elohim, for Thy mercy, and for Thine
Own sake, and for Thy name, and for Thy glorj', and for
ihe sake of our Lords Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and
our Lords Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar, and Ithamar,
and Pinehas, and Joshua, and Caleb, and the Holy Angels,
and the seventy Elders, and the holy mountain of Gerizim,
Beth El. If Thou acceptest [□i^J^n] tbis prayer [XIpD
^reading], may there go forth from before Thy holy
countenance a gift sent to protect the spirit of Thy

servant, \U .\ "SjU [N. the son of N.], of the

sons of [ ], daughter [ ] from the sous of [ ].

Lord Jehovah, in Thy mercy have compassion on
him (.J" [or] 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 Mount
Gerizim Beth El. Amen. Through Moses the trusty.
Amen, Amen, Amen.

The next is part cf a hymn (see Kirchheim's
Carme Skomron, emendations on Gesenius, Carm.
Sam. iii.) : —

ins X'PX n'?N n*^ There is no God but one,

nO'l/p DTI'PX The everlasting God,

^]h ny tDTPt Who liveth for ever;

1 V^n 73 '?y n /X God above all powers,

U7yh P '0131 Andwholhusremainethfor

SAMAKITAN PENTATEUCH Hi;

pD in nxn

n'DD -|mn3
"131 "inin'px tD^D'2

In Thy great power shall

we trust.
For Thou art our Lord ;

In Thy Godhead ; for J hou

hast conducted
The world from beginning

Thy power was hidden.
And Thy glory and mercy.

Revealed are both the things
that are revealed, and
those that are unrevealed

Before the reign of Thy
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
in 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 gi'eater 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" flDK ^T'J, or only converts through
fear — "Lion Converts " TlVIN *T'3 — in allusion
to the ncident related in 2 K. xvii. 25 (^Haka K.
38 ; Kidush. 75, &c.). One Rabbi holds '•133 Tin,
" 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 ;
Kctnh. 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 them for their
ritually slaughtering animals, even fowls (Chul.
4a) ; their wells are pronounced to be conformed
to all the conditions prescribed by the Mishnah
{Toseph. Mikic. 6 ; comp. Mikw. 8, 1). See, how-
ever Abodah Zarah (Jcr. 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 (.^6. 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. Cath. i.) — against
R. Jehudah, who asserts that they circumcise " in
the name of Blount Gerizim " {Abodah Zarah, 43).
The criminal law makes no difference whatever be-
tween them and the .lews {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 {GMin, 106 ; Middah, 336). By
degrees, however, inhibitions began to be laid upon
the use of their wine, vinegar, bread {Mas. Cuth. 2 ;
Toseph. 77, 5), &c. This intermediate stage of

1118 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

uncei-taiu and inconsistent treatment, which must
have lasted for nearly two centuiies, is best char-
acterized by the small rabbinical treatise quoted
above— 3Iassechcth Cutliim (2nd cent, a.d.) — fii-st
edited by Kirchheim ('D'?t^''n'' mJDp 'DD )i1'^
Fraucf. 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:

" And why are the Cuthim not permitted to come
into the midst of the Jews?- Because they have
mixed with the priests of the heights" (idolaters).
K. Ismael says : " They were at first pious converts
(pT^ 'T'^ =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 D3' (marrying the deceased
brothei''s wife) " ; a law which thev 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 Jlount
Gerizim, recognise Jerusalem (viz., its superior
claims), and beheve in the'Resurrection." *

We hear of their exclusion by R. Jleir (Chul.
6), in the third generation of the Tanaim, and
later again under K. Abbuha, the Amora, at the
time of Diocletian ; this time the exclusion was un-
conditional and final {Jer. Ahodah Zarah, 5, &c.).
Partaking of their bread y was considered a trans-
gi-ession, to be punished like eating the flesh of
swine {Zeh. 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 in Luke rvii. 18 the Samaritan is
called "a stranger" {aWoyevTjs). The reason for
this exclusion is vai-iously given. They are said
by some to have used and sold the wine of heathens
for sacnficial 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 mvste-
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. 18a 1-4; also Van Vloten, Specimen,
&c., 4to. Lugd. 1803. Literae ad ScaKger, &c.
(by De Sacy) and Epistola ad Ludolph. (Bruns),
in Eichhoin's Repertorium, xiii. Also, with Letters
to De Sacy himself, in Notices et Extraits des
MSS. Par. 1831. Chronicon Samaritanum, by
Juynboll, 4to. Lej'den 1848. Specimen of Samar.
Commentary on Gen. xlix. by Schnurrer, in Eich-
horn's Ilepert. xvi. Carra. Samar. Gescnius, 4to.
Lips. 1824.

2. Dissertations, &c. J. Morinus, Exercitatioiies,

"• The briefest rendering ot D''1T0D which we can
give— a full explanation of tlie term would exceed our
limits.

» On this subject the I'ent. contains nothing explicit.
Thej- at first rejected that dogma, but adopted it at a later
period, perliaps since I'ositheus; comp. llie saylnRs of

SAMMUS

&c., Par. 1631 ; Opuscida Hehr. Samaritica, Par.
1657; Antiquitates Eccl. Orient., Lond. 1682.
J. H. Hottinger, Exercit. Anti-morinianae, &c.,
Tigur. 1 644. Walton, De Pent. Sam. in Prologorn .
ad Folyglott. Castell, Animadversimws, in Poly-
glott, vi. Cellarius, fforae Samaritanae, Ciz. 1 682 ;
also Collectanea, in Ugolini, xsii. Leusden, Philo-
logus Hehr. Utraj. 1686, St. Jlorinus, Exercit.
de Ling, primaevd, Utr. 1 694. Schwai-z, E.vercita-
tiones, &c. Houbigant, Prolegomena, &c., Par.
1746. Kennicott, State of the Heh. Text, &c., ii.
1759. J. G. Cai-pzov, Crit. Sacri ]'. T. Pt. 1,
Lips. 1728. Hassencamp, Entdeckter Urspmng,
&c. O. G. Tychsen, Disputatio, &c., Biitz. 1765:«
Bauer, Crit. Sacr. Gesenius, De Pent. Sam.
Origine, &c., Hal. 1815 ; Samar. Tlieohgia, &c.,
Hal. 1822; Anecdota Exon. Lips. 1824. Heng-
stenberg, Auth. des Pent. Mazade Sur l' Origine,
&c.. Gen. 1830. M. Stuart, A'. Amer. Rev.
Frankel, Vorstudien, Leipz. 1841. Kirchheim,
tnOIC^ ''DID, Frankfort 1851. The Einleitvngen
of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Vater, DeWette, Havernick,
Keil, &c. The Geschichtcn of Jost, Herzfeld, kc.

3. Versions. Winei-, Dc Vers. Pent. Sam.
De Sacy, Mem. sur la Vers. Arabe des Licres de
Moise, in Mem. de Litterature, xlix. Par. 1808 ;
n\so L'Etat actuel des Samaritains, Par. 1812;
De Versione Samaritano-Arahica, &c., in Eich-
horn's AUg. Bibliotheh, x. 1-176. [E. D.]

SAM'ATUS (Sa^arrfs : Semedius). One of the
sons of Ozora in the list of 1 Esd. ix. 34. The
whole verse is verv corru]>t.

SAMEI'US (Sajuaros). Shemaiaii of the
sons of Harim (1 Esd. ix. 21 ; comp. Ezi-. x. 21).

SAM'GAE-NE'BO (•inri^pp : Samegar-
nehu). One of the princes or generals of the king
of Babylon who commanded the victorious army of
the Chaldaeans at the captui-e of Jerusalem (Jer.
xxxix. 3). The text of the LXX. is corrupt. The
two names " Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim," are there
written "ZafxayuiQ koi NajSoun-axap- The JVebo
is the Chaldaean Mercury ; about the Samojar,
opinions are divided. V"on Bohlen suggested that
from the Sanscrit sangara, " war," might be formed
sdngara, " warrior," and that this was the original
of Samgar.

SA'MI (TfUjSis; Alex. 2a/8ei: Tohi). Shobai
(1 Esd. V. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42).

SA'MIS (2o/t€is : om. in Vulg.). SiiniEi 13
(1 Esd. ix. 34 ; comp. Ezr. x. 38).

SAM'LAH (n^pb : 2a/ua5<£; Ale.T. SaXojUci:
Semla), Gen. x.xxvi. 36, 37; 1 Chr. i. 47, 48.
One of the kings of Edom, successor to Hadad oi-
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, sucjgests
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 (lan/xois: Samus). Shema (1 Esd.
ix. 43 ; comp. Keh. viii. 4).

Jehndda-hadassi and Alassudi, that one of the two Sama-
ritan sects believes in the Resurrection ; Kpipiiaiiius,
Ix-ontius, Gregory the Gnat, testify unanimously to
their former unbelief in this article of their present faith.
^ nS. Lightfoot"lmcelUi"(.')

SAMOS

SA'MOS (Idfxos). A very illustrious Greek
island oft' 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-
I'eileracy to its leceut stniggles against Turkey
during the war of independence, and since, we
must ''refer to the Diet, of Greek and Bom. Geog."
Samos is a very lolty and commanding island ; the
word, in fact, denotes a height, especially by the
sea-shore: hence, also, the name of Samotheacia,
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 Jliletus, 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 % 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
JIarcus 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,
PlOss) have described this island. We may refer
particularly to a very recent work on the subject,
Description de I'ile de Patmos et de rile de
Samos (Paris, 1856), by V. Guerin, who spent
two months in the island. [J. S. H.]

SAMOTHRA'CIA (^afioepaKv : Samothra-
cia). The mention of this island in the account of
St. Paul's first voyage to Europe (Acts xvi. 11) is for
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 irom Troas to Keapolis. From the shore
at Troas Samothrace is seen towering over Imbros
(Horn. //. xiii. 12, 13; Kinglake's Eothen, p. 64),
and it is similarly a marked object in the view fi-om
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 that
it occupied only parts of two days, whereas ou a
subsequent return-voyage (Acts xx. 6) the time
spent at sea was five : but the technical word here
used (ev6vSpofji.v<rafiev) implies that they ran be-
fore the wind. Now the position of Samothrace is
exactly such as to correspond with these notices,
and thus incidentally to confii-m the accuracy of a
'most artless narrative. St. Paul and his companions
anchored for the night oflT Samothrace. The ancient
citv, and therefore probably the usual anchorage,
w;is on the N. side, which would be sufficiently
sheltered from a S.E. wind. It may be added, as a
further practical consideration not to be overlooked,
that such a wind would be favourable for over-
cominiy tJie opposing current, which sets southerly

» A curious illustration of the renown of the Samian
earthenware is furnished by the Vulgate rendering of
Is xlv. 9 ■ " 'I'e.-ta <le Samiis terrae."

SAMSON

1119

after leaving the Dardanelles, and easterly between
Samothrace and the mainland. Fuller details are
given in Life and Epp. of St. Paul, 2nd ed. i.
335-338. 'The chief classical associations of this
island are mythological and connected with the
mysterious di\-inities called Cabeiri. Perseus took
lefuge here atler his defeat by the Romans at
Pydna. In St. Paul's time Samothrace had, ac-
cording to Pliny, the privileges of a small fi-ee state,
though it was doubtless considered a dependency of
the province of Macedonia. [J. S. H.]

SAMP'SAMES (2aju»|/t{juT)s, 'Xa^i.^^/iK-ns: Lamp-
sacus, Samsames), a name which occurs in the list
of those to whom the Romans are said to have sent
letters in favour of the Jews (1 Mace. xv. 23). The
name is probably not that of a sovereign (as it appears
to be taken in A. V.), but of a place, which Grimm
identifies with Samsun on the coast of the Black
Sea, between Siuope and Trebizond. [B. F. W.]

SAM'SON (|^C^'PK', i.e. Shimshon: 2a/ii//c^'j' :
" 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
seem naturally to allude to the " awe " and
" astonishment " wth 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, xis. 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,
(l)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 futui-e 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 Pliilistines
in the time of Eli occurred during Samson's life-
time. There are besides several points in the re-
spective narratives of the times of Samson and Sa-
muel which indicate great proximity. First, there

1120

SAMSON

is the geneial proinineiice of the I'hil.stines iu their
)-elatioa to Israel. Secoiidl}', there is the remark-
able coincidence of botli Samson and Samuel being
Nazarites (.ludg. 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
the consecration of her son in like manner, or, at all
evtnts, as if lor some reason the Nazarite vow was
at that time prevalent. No other mention of Na-
zaiites occurs iu the Scrijtture history till Amos ii.
11, 12 ; and even theie 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 cov.'ed spirit of his people,
and shaking tlie insolent security of the Philistines,
than in tlie 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
deliverjiim 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
Dan.

(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."

» " 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
coime.\ion 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 'I'yrian Hercules (whose temple at Tyre
is described by Herodot. ii. 44), he also tells us, •' was ori-
ginally the Sun, and the same as Biud" (Kawl. Herod, ii.
44, note 1). The conne.xion between the Phoenician Baal
(called Baal Shemen, Baal Shemesh, and Baal Hamman), and
Hercules is well known. Gesenius ( 77ies. s. v. py^) tells us
that, in cerlaiu Phoenician inscriptions, which are accom-
panied by a Greek translation, IJaal is rendered Herakle,':,
and that "the Tyrian Hercules" is the constant (i reek

SAMSON

But, on the other hand, after his locks were cut,
and liis strength was gone from him, it is said
" He wist not that the Lord was depaited from
him" (Judg. xiii. 2.5, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14, xvi. 2J).
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 Nazaritic
vow, and the particular gift of' great strength of
body, as seen in tearing in pieces a lion, bieaking
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 e.xact paiallel in Scripture. It is easy,
however, to see how forcibly the Israelites would
be taught, by such an example, that their national
stiength lay iu 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 wlMther anv of the
legends which have attached themselves to the name
of Hercules may have been derived from Phoenician
traditions of the stiength 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 carried stories concerning the Hebrew
hero to the dilferent 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 liave 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

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
(Mon. Phoen. i. 171 ; ii. tab. 21). Another evidence of
the identity of the Phoenician Baal and Hercules may be
found in BauU, 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. Buchart thinks the
custom described, by Ovid (Fast, liv.) of tying a lighted
torch between two foxes in the circus, in memoiy of the
damage once done to the harvest by a fox with burning
haj' and straw tied to it, was derived from the Phoenicians,
and is clearly to be traced to the history of Sam.son (Hieroz.
purs i. lib. iii. cap. xiii.). From all which arises a con-
siderable probability that the Greek and Latin conception
of Hercules in regard lo his strength was derived from
ir'hoenician stories and reminiscences of the great Hebrew
hero Samson. Some learned men cormect 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 etymolugies
are very convincing.

SAMUEL

degenerate into frenzy. Every crime, however, is
atoned for by some new suilering; but nothing
breaks his invincible courage, until, purilied from
eartlily corruption, lie 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
ludicrous situations, and sometimes made the butt
of the buffoonery of others. The Cercopes are
represented as alternately amusing and annoying
the hero, in worlcs of art they are often repi-e-
sented as satyi-s 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 that the histoij of
Samson is an historical, and not an allegorical nar-
rative. It has also a distinctly supernattiral element
which cannot be explained away. The history, fts
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. Jose])hus 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 Judijes ; Bayle's Diet. [A. C. H.]

SAM'UEL ("pK-im, i.e. Shemiiel: :^afjLovi]\ :

Arabic, Sainwil, or Aschmouyl , see D'Herbelot, under
this last namej. Different derivations have been
given. (1) 7K D^, " name of God :" so appa-
rently Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 25), 0eo/cA.7;Tos.

(2) bx rm, « placed by God." (3) "pN 'piNE^,
"asked of God"(l Sam. i. 20). Josephus inge-
niously makes it correspond to the well-known Greek
name Theaetetus. (4) h^ V^ty^, " 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 the
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, con-esponding to the manner
in which the name of Moses has hieen assigned to
the sacred book, now divided into five, which covers
the period of the foundation of the Jewish Church
itself. In flict no character of equal magnitude had
arisen since the death of the great Lawgiver.

He was the sou of Elkanah, an Ephrathite or
Ephraimite, and Hannah or Anna. His fiither is
one of the few private citizens in whose household
we find polygamy. It may possibly have arisen
from the irregularity of the period.

The descent of Elkanah is involved in gi-eat ob-

VOL. U.

SAMUEL

1121

scurity. In 1 Sam. i. 1 be is described as an
I'^phraimite. In 1 Chr. vi. 22, 23 he is made a de-
scendant of Knrah the Levite. Hengstenberg (on
Vs. Ixxviii. 1) and Ewald (ii. 433) explain this by
supposing that tlie Levites were occasionally incor-
porated into the tribes amongst whom they dwelt.
The question, howevei-, is of no practical impoit-
ance, because, even if Samuel were a Levite, he
certainly was not a Priest by descent.

Plis birthplace is one of the vexed questions of
sacred geography, as his descent is of sacred gene-
alogy. [See Ramathaim-Zophim.] All that ap-
peal's with certainty from the accounts is that it
was in the hills of Ephraim, and (as may be iu-
fei-rcd from its name) a double height, used for the
piu-pose of beacons or outlookers (1 Sam. i. 1). At
the foot of the hill was a well (1 Sam. xix. 22).
On the brow of its two summits was the city. It
never lost its hold on Samuel, who in later life made
it his fi.xed abode.

The combined family must have been large.
Penimiah had several children, and Hannah had,
besides Samuel, three sons and two daughters. But
of these nothing is known, unless the names of the
sons are those enumerated in 1 Chr. vi. 26, 27.

It is on the mother of Samuel that our chief
attention is fixed in the account of his birth. She
is desciibed as a woman of a high religious mission.
Almost a Nazarite by practice (1 Sam. i. 15), and
a prophetess in her gifts (1 Sam. ii. 1), she sought
fiom God the gift of the child for which she longed
with a passionate devotion of silent prayer, of which
there is no other example in the 0. T., and when
the son was granted, the name which he bore, and
thus fil'st 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 bi-ought 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 ffour,
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 gi'eat occasions
of victory and the like. But verse 5 specially
applies to this event, and verses 7, 8 may well
express the sense eptertained 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 in the
tabernacle. The priests famished him with a sacred
garaient, 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 bado-e, till the latest times of his

4 C

1122

SAMUEL

life. [Mantle, vol. ii. p. 231 6.] He seems to
have slept within the Holiest Place (LXX., 1 Sam.
iii. 3), and his special duty was to put out, as it
would seem, the sacred candlestick, and to open the
doors at sunrise.

In this way his childhood was passed. It was
whilst thus sleeping in the tabernacle that he re-
ceived his first prophetic call. The stillness of the
night — the sudden voice — the childlike misconcep-
tion—the venerable Eli — the contrast between the
terrible doom and the gentle creature who has to
announce it — give to this portion of the narrative
a universal interest. It is this side of Samuel's
career that has been so well caught in the well-
known picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds.

From this moment the prophetic character of
Samuel was established. His words were treasured
up, and Shiloli became the resoii of those who
came to hear him (iii. 19-21).

In the overthrow of the sanctuary, which fol-
lowed shortly on this vision, we hear not what
became of Samuel.* He ne.\t appeals, probably
twenty years afterwards, suddenly amongst the
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 tu God for them. It was at the moment
that he was offering up a sacriKce, and sustaining
this loud cry (compare the situation of Pausanias
before the battle of Plataea, Herod, is. 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
assistance of Israel. The Philistines fled, and,
exactly at the spot where twenty years before they
had obtained their gieat 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-
coufoi-mist chapels (1 Sam. vii. 12). The old Ca-
naanites, whom the Philistinas 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
wliich raised him to the office of " Judge " (comp.
1 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 (eV irucn rols
T)yia<Tixivois tovtois) on the west of the Jordan — •
Bethel, Gilgal, and Jlizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 16). His
own residence was still his natfve city, liamah or
Kamathaim, which he further consecrated by an
altar (vii. 17). Here he married, and two sons
gi'ew up to repeat wider his eyes the same per-
version of high office that he had himself witnessed
in his ciiildhood in the case of the two sons of Eli.

" According to the Mussulman tradition, Samuel's birth
is granted in answer to the prayers of the nation on the
overthruw of the sanctuary and loss of the ark (l»'Her-
belot, Aschmouyl). This, though false in the letter, is true
to the spirit of Samuel's life.

SAMUEL

One was Abiah, the 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 they exercised their func-
tions at the southern frontier in Beersheba (1 Sara,
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. He
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 bribes,
and in exlorting 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, " beciiuse of his inborn sense of
justice, because of his hatred of kings, as so far
inferior to the aristocratic form of goveniment,
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 saci-ed 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
greatly." 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 — Hophui, Phinehas, or his own sons
— he had kept aloof from all. No ox or ass had
he taken from their stalls — no bribe to obtain his
judgment (LXX., e|iA.a(r^a) — not even a sandal
{uir6SriiJLa, LXX., and Ecclus. xlvi. 19). It is this
appeal, and the response of the people, that has
made Grotius call him the Jewish Aristides. He
then sums up the new situation in which they have
placed themselves ; and, although " the wickedness
of asking a king" is still strongly insisted on, and
the unusual portent *> of a thunderstorm in May or
June, in answer to Samuel's pn.yer, is urged as a
sign of Divine displeasure (xii. 16-19), the general
tone of the condemnation is much softened from
that which was pronounced on the first intimation
of the change. The first king is lepeatedly acknow-
ledged as " the Messiah " or anointed of the Lord

b According to the Mussulman traditions, his anger was
occasioned by the people rejecting Saul as not being of the
tribe of Judah. The sign that Saul was the king was the
liquefaction of the sacred oil in his presence and the re-
covery of Ihe tabernacle (D'Herhclot, Aaclinioiti/l).

SAMUEL

(xii. 3, 5), the future prosperity of the nation ii
declared to depend on their use or misuse of the
new constitution, and Samuel retires with expres-
sions of goodwill and hope: — " 1 will teach you the
good and the ri2;ht way . . . only fear the I.oid ..."
(1 Sam. xii. 2:i', 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 bv 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 witli others of his time. He was especially
known in his own acje as " Samuel the Seer "
(I Chr. ix. 22, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29j. "I am the
seer," was hi* 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 p\eiroDv,
he is called in the Acta S/mctorum. 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 " lievdation " to
a human being (see Gesenius, in voc. H?]!). He
was consulted far and near on the small affairs of life ;
loaves of " bread," or " tlie fourth pai t 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 believec^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 hist consolation
he left in his paiting 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 seemed to draw
down as by force tiie Divine answer (1 Sam. vii.
8, 9). All night long, in agitated moments, "he
cried 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.

SAMUEL

1123

<: Agag is described by Josephus (^Ant. vl. 7, §2 ) as a
chief of magnificent appearance; and hence rescued from
destruction. This is perhaps an inference from the word
ri!nj?D, which tlif Vulgate transl.ites pinguissimv.':.

(ci). He represents the independence of the moral
law, of the Divine Will, as distinct from regal or
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 appeais 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 he
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 Ramah (1
Sam. X. 8, xiii. 8) ; the second w;:s 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 '^ prince
before him, and with his own hands hacked him
limb from limb,^ in retribution for the desolation
he had brought into tlie 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-
moi-y, " To obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams."

The parting was not one of rivals, but of dear
though divided friends. The King thi-ows 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 whicii
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 giief fell over the prophet.
" Samuel mourned for Saul." " It grieved Samuel
fcr 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 deinceps
donee populus Israel in Babyloniimr captivus ve-

heretur, totum est tempus prophefarum "

(Aug. Cio. 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 oider of things, of which the
prophetical office was the chief expression. Some
predisposing causes there may have been in his own

<■ 1 Sam. XV. The LXX. softens this into Icrtfiafe ; but
the Vulg. translation, in frusta concidit, " cut up into
small pieces," seems to be the true meanijig.

4 C 2

1124

SAMUEL

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

family and birthplace. His mother, as we have I is said with peculiar emphasis, as if to mark the

seen, though not expressly so called, was in fact a
prophetess ; the word Zophim, as the affix of Pui-
mathaim, has been explained, not unreasonably, to
mean "seers;" and Elkanah, his father, is by the
Chaldee parajihrast on 1 Sam. i. 1, said to be " a
disciple of the prophets." But the connexion of
the continuity of the office with Samuel appears to
be still 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 ofthis congretjation, or " church
as it were within a church" (LXX. t7}V eKKArj-
aiav, 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.
six. 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
" Kaioth in Ramah," as to his second home (1 Sam.
xix. 19^j, 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
of Greece were not yet in existence. From these
Jewish institutions were developed, by a natural
order, the universiti&s of Christendom. And it may
be further added, that with this view the whole hfe
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 cluiracter, that
makes him so fit an instrument for conducting his
nation through so gi-eat a change.

The death of Samuel is dc'cribed as taking place
in the year of the close of David's wanderings. It

loss, that " all the Israelites" — all, with a univer-
sality never specified before — " were gathered to-
gether" from all parts of this hitherto divided
country, and " lamented him," and " buried him,"
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 tianslated " from
Judaea " (the place is not sisecified) a.D. 406, to
Constantinople, and received there with much pomp
by the Emperor Arcadius. Tliey were landed 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 Nehy Saniwil, "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 foith at length in the articles Ramah ;
Rajiathaim-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 onlv spot in Palestine which claims any direct
connexion with the first great prophet who was
bora 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 or* of the chief singers
in the Levitical choir (1 Chr. vi. 33, xv. 17, 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 (I Chr. xxix. 29); but this appears
doubtful. [Seep. 1126,6.] Vaiious other books of
the 0. T. have been ascribed to him by the Jewish
tradition: the Judges, Eutht 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, Kai
Kohad). [A. P. S.]

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (bx-IOtJ' : Bao-iAei'ujv
UpwTT], AevTepa: LiherRegwn Primus, Secimdas).
Two historical books of the Old Testament, which
are not sepai-ated from each other in the Hebrew
MSS., and which, from a critiail point of view,
must be regarded as one book. The present division
was first made in the Septuagint translation, and
w;is adopted in the Vulgate from the Septuagint.
But Origen, as quoted by Eusebius (Histor. Eccles.
vi. 25),°expressly states that they formed only or.e
book among the Hebrews. Jerome (Praefatio in
Libros Samuel et Mdachim) implies the same state-

SAMUEL. BOOKS OF

rnent ; and in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, fol. 14,
c. 2), Avherein the authorship is attributed to Samuel,
they are designated by the name of his book, in the

singular number (nSD 3n2 "pXIJDtJ*)- ^^^^^' ^^^
invention of pi-inting they were published as one
book in the first edition of the whole Bible printed
at Soncino in 1488 A.D., and likewise in the Com-
plutensiau Polyolot printed at Alcala, 1502-1517
A.D. ; and it was not till the year 1518 that
the division of the Septuaginl was adopted in He-
brew, in the edition of the Bible printed by the
Bombergs at Venice. The book was cjilled 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 Mishna bears the name of Beitsah, 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 Siimuel's name because all tilings
that occur in each book may, in a cerfciin 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
" Heimski-ingia," the World's Circle, because Heims-
kringla was the first prominent word of the MS.
that caught the eye (Laing's Heimsknngla, 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 coirect
infoi-mation. 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
negative.

1st, as to the authorship. In common with all
the historiciil books of the Old Testament, except
the beginning of Neliemiah, the Book of Samuel
contains no mention in the text of the name of its
author. The earliest Greek historic.d work extant,
written by one who has frequently been called the
Father of History, commences with the words,
" This is a publication 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 tor writing it, commences by
stating, " Thucydides the Athenian wrote the his-
toiy of the war between the Peloptinnesians and
Athenians," and frequently uses the formula that
such or such a yo;U' ended — the second, or third, or
fourth, as the case might be — " of this war of which,
Thucydides wrote the history " (ii. 70, lOo ; iii. 25,
88, 116). Again, when he speaks in one passage

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 1125

mention his own name, he refers to himself as

Thucydides son of Oloras, who composed this
work" (iv. 104). Now, with the one exception
of this kind already mentioned, no similar infonna-
tion 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-
ship embodied in the text, it is possible that his-
toriail books might come down to us with a title
containing the name of the author. This is the
case, for example, with Livy's Boman History, and
Caesar's Commentaries of the Gallic War. In the
latter case, indeed, although Caesar mentions a long
series of his own actions without intimating that he
was the author of the work, and thus there is an
antecedent improbability that he wrote it, yet tbe
traditional title of the work outweighs this impro-
bability, confirmed as the title is by an unbroken
chain of testimony, commencing with contemporaries
fCicero, End. 75; Caesar, De Bell. Gall. viii. 1 ;
Suetonius, Jul. Cues. 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
title except the first Hebrew words of each part ;
and the titles Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, which are derived fi-oni the Sep-
tuagint, convey no information as to their author.
In like manner, the Book of Judges, the Books of
the Kings and the Chronicles, are not refeiTed to
any particular historian ; and although six works
bear respectively the names of Joshua, Kuth, Samuel,
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, there is nothing in the
works themselves to preclude the idea that in each
case Jthe subject only of the work may be indicated,
and not its authorship ; as is shown conclusively by
the titles Kuth and Esther, which ne one has yet
coastrued 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,
noi, 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 Apociypha
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 ibr 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 Mishna,' where, however, the inference
from such silence is far less cogent. And it ;s not
until we come to the Babylonian Gemara, which is
supposed to have been completed in its present form

of events in which it is necessaiy that he should I somewhere about 500 A.D., that any Jewish state

1126 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

ment respecting the authorship can be pointed out,
and then it is for the first time asserted (Bahn
Bathra, fol. 14-, c. 2), in a passage already refened
to, that " Samuel wiote his book," i. e. as the words
imply, the book which bears his name. But this
statement ainnot be proved to have been made
earlier than 1550 years after the death of Samuel —
a longer peiiod than has elapsed since the death of
the Emperor Constantine ; and unsuppoi ted as the
statement is by refeience to any authority of any
kind, it would be unwoithy 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 Abarbai:el, a Icained Jew,
t A.D. 1508, that the Book of Samuel was written
by the prophet Jeremiah ^ (Lat. by Arg. Fteifter,
Leipzig, 168(3), and this opinion was adopted by Hugo
Grotius (Pref. ad Lihnim priorem Sanwelis), with
a geneial statement that there was no discrepancy in
the language, and with only one special reference.
Xotwithstauding the eminence, however, of these
writers, this opinion must be i ejected as highly im-
probable. Under any circumstances it could not be
regarded as more than a mere guess ; and it is, in
reality, 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 i-eaders 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
modern times, and without such documents it can-
not be shown that they had any better means of
ascertiiining this jx)int than we have. Two circum-
stances have probably contributed to the adoption
of this opinion at the present day : — 1st, the growth
of stricter ideas as to the importance of knowing
who was the author of any historical work which
advances claims to be trustworthy ; and I'ndly, the
mistranslation of an ambiguous passage in the First
Cook of Chronicles (.\xix. 29), respecting the autho-

» Professor Hitz.ig, 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
(Hitzig, Dk I'saVnai, pp. 48-H5). Whether the conclu-
Biori is correct or incorrect, this is a legitimate mode of

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

rities for the life of David. The first point requires
no comment. On the second point it is to be ob-
seri'ed 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 Samuel the seer, and in the history
of Nathan the prophet, and in the history of Gad
the seer" — in which the Hebrew word dibrei, here
translated " histoiy," 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
gi'cat 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. 1.37), and in the like sense in the Apo-
crypha, wherein it is used to describe the history of
Tobit, ^i$Xos \6ywy Ta)/3iT. 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 modern 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, Kathan, or
Samuel was the author.''

2. Although the authorship of the Book of Samuel
cannot be asceitained, 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. l]vidence 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 e.xact 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 belbie 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 Pjalms xxxi., xxxv., xl.

!> In the Swedish Bible the word dibrei In each of the
four insuuices is translated " acts" {Gemingar), being pre-
cisely the same word which is used to designate the Acta
of the Apostles in the New Testament. This translation
Is self-consisttnt and admissible. But the German
translations, supported as they are by the Septuagint,
seem preferable.

SAMUEL, BOOKS 0*^

founding a libiai-y, gathered together the acts of
the kings, and the prophets, and of David, and the
epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts."
!No\v, although this passage ('4)nnot be relied on for
proving that Neheniiah himself did in fact ever
found such a library,' yet it is good evidence to
prove that the Acts of the Kings, to, irepl tZv
^aaiXiuiv, were in existence when the ]>a.ssage 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 befoie the Chro-
nicles. This is not absolutely certain, but it seems
to be the most natural inference from the words
that the historv of David, first and last, is con-
tained in the liistory 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
disjnite) 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 tlie Seleucidae
(Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Jitden,
p. 32). Supposing that the Chronicles were written
earlier, this evidence would go, in ])recise proportion,
farther back, but there would be still a total absence
of earlier external evidence on the subject than is
contained in the Chronicles. If, however, instead
of lookmg 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
tbllowiiig 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 S.amuel, the offering of sacrifices, or
the erection of altars, which implies sacrifices, is
mentioned at several places, such as Mizpeh, Ramah,
Bethel, the threshing- place of Araunah the Jebusite,
and elsewhere, not only without any disappiobation,
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-

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 1127

stance points to the date of the Book of Samuel as
earlier ilian the reformation of Josiah, when Hil-
kiah the high-priest told Shaphan the scribe that
he had found the r)Ook of the Law in the house of
Jehovah, when the Passover was kept as was en-
joined in that book, in a way that no Passover had
been holden since the days of the Judges, and when
the worship upon high-places was aljolished 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 itself 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
lea~.t, of the captivity of Judah (2 K. xxv. 21, 27 j.
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 hkewise as a drawback in the excellence of
other kings, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Johoash,
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 that
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 leferred to him as the divine prophet
who cominunicated them directly from Jehovah.
This transcendent importance of Moses must already
have commenced at the finding of the Book of the
Law at the leformation of Josiali. Now it is re-
markable that the Book of Samuel is 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 Latu of Moses
(1 Sam. xii. 6, 8). It may be thought that no
infpi'ence can be drawn from this omission of the
name of Moses, because, inasmuch as the Law of
Moses, as a whole, was evidently not acted on in
the time of Saniuel, David, and Solomon, there was
no occasion for a writer, however late he lived, to
inti-cduce the name of !Moses at all in connexion
with their life and actions. But it is very rare

= Professors Ewald and Bleek have accepted tbe 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
1 easons for rejecting the statement: — 1st. It occurs in a
letter generally deemed spurious. 2iidly. In the same
letter a fabulous story is recorded not only of Jeremiah

(ii. 1-7), but likewise of Nehemiah himself. Srdly. An
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 had
been shaken to a similar extent, would, unless corroborated
by other evidence be relied on as an authority for any
important fact.

1128 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

indeed for later writei-s to refrain in this way from
importing the ideas of tlieir own time into the ac-
count of earlier transactions. Thus, very early iu
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 ciilculation 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 Mcoiicre'cos
vifuoOea-ias, 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 JMoses the
thretit 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 Closes would not necessarily
be of equal importance to a Hebrew historian who
lived before the i-eformation of Josiah.

3. It tallies with an e;irly date for the compo-
sition of the Book of Samuel that it is one of the
best speciraeas 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 arcliaisms'' (Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, §2, 5).
It is a striking contrast to the language of the Book
of Chronicles, which undoubtedly belongs to the
silver age of Hebrew prose, and it does not contain
jis 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 rix
instances, some of them doubtful ones, in 90 pages

<i As •compared with Samuel, the peculiarities of the
Pentateuch are not quite as strikiriK as the (liffcrences in
language between Lucretius and Virgil: the parallel which

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

of our modern Hebrew Bible. And, considering the
ijeneral purity of the language, it is not only
possible, but probable, that the trifling residuum of
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 fiir 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 proj)hecies of Habakkuk, the Psalms cxx.,
cxxxvii., cxxxix., pointed out by Gesenius, and by
fiir the largest portion of the latter part of the pro-
phecies attributed to " Isaiah " (xl.-lxvi.). And we
have not sufficient knowledge of the condition of
the Jews at the time of the Captivity, oi- 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 ])robability
inclines to the contrary direction, and, as a sub-
sidiary argument, the purity of language of the
Book uf 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-
adequate to prove whether he lived three centui'ies,
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, " Beforetime iu
Israel, when a man went to enquii-e 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
afler the incidents to which he alludes. In like
manner, the various traditions respecting the manner
in which Saul first became acquainted with David

has been suggested by Gesenius. Virgil seems to have
been abimt 14 years of age when Lucretius's great poem
w;vs published.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

(1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58) — respecting the
maimer of Saul's death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, 8-13 ;
2 Sam. i. 2-12) — do uot 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
tlie invention of printing, and when probably few
could read, thii'ty or forty ye;irs, or even less, have
been sufficient lor the growth of dilferent 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 bodiv 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
writmgs 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 pi"esent 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-
stiuice 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,
there has been a controverey 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 IntrodtKtion to the Critical Study and
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, London, Long-
man, 185(3, in which this subject is dispassionately

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 112!)

and fairly treated. One observation, however, 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 accounts
(already alluded to) resjiecting Saul's first acquaint-
ance with David, and the circumstaucee 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 coiTect, or even to point out to the
reader that the two accounts were appaiently 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 in
reference to the two accounts of Saul's death, this
is 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 cun-y 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 hail just before
recorded respecting the circumstances under which
Saul's death occun'ed. And if compilation is ad-
mitted in regard to the two events just mentioned,
or to one of them, t()ere 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 having 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 writeis,
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 ration:d
incjuiry to ascertain the materials from which it
was composed. But our information on this head
is scanty. The only work actually quoteil in this

1130

SAMUEL, BOOKS 0¥

book is the Book of Jasher ; i. e. the Book of tlie
Upright. Notwithstanding the great leiirning which
has been brouglit to bear' on this title by numerous
commentators [vol. i. p. 932], the meaning of the
title must be recjarded as absolutely unknown, and
the character of the boojc itself as uncertain. The
best conjecture hitherto oflered as an induction fiom
facts is, that it was a Book of Poems ; but the tacts
are too few to esbiblish 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 oflered ; commencing with the poetry of David.
(1.) David's Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan,
called " The Bow." This e-xtremely 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. IS), 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 insciiption. For poetical beauty, the song is
well worthy to be the production of David. The
following dithculties, 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
Idng 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 ; mid it immediately precedes
the twenty-third chapter, which commences with
the passage, " Now these be the last words of Da-\'id."
It sounds strange, therefore, that the name of Saul

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

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. xxii. 51), Je-
hovah is spoken of as showing " mercy to His
anointed, unto David and his seed for evermore."
These words would be more naturally written of
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 LTriah, 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 undersfcmd 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 muider. These assertions, if
made by David himself, would term 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 fnem.)

(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 u]i on high, the anointed of the
God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel."
Jt 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 perliaps
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 fi-om the intei-nal 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 ban-en having borne seven, there is

^ Any Hebrew scholiir who will write out the original
four lines commencing with " Sun, stand tliou still upon
Gibeon !" 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
heavy, is almost unmistakeably a line of poetiy in the
original. In a narrative respecting the Isracliles in prose

they would not liave been described as ^"jjl (yoi), without
even an article. Moreover, there is no other instance in
which the simple accusative of the person ou whom ven-
geance is talten is used after QpJ (nakam). In simple
prose JQ (min) intervenes, and, like the article, it may
have been here omitted for conciseness.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

nothing in the song peculiarly applicable to the
supposed circumstiuices, and by far the greater
portion of it seems to be a song ot triuni])h ibr 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 (Uxegetisches 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,
or on distinct oral traditions. This point is open
to dispute ; but the theory of written documents
seems preferable ; ;rs in the alternati^•e of mere
oral traditions it would have been supereminently
unnatural even for a compilei' to record them
without stating in his own person that there were
different traditions respecfing 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 contempoiary 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 tempts 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 nanator than on mere
bodily presence. " It is the mind that sees," so
that 200 years after the meeting of the T.ong Par-
liament a powerful imaginative writer shall pour-
tray Cromwell more vividly than Ludlow, a con-
temporary who knew him and conversed with him.
j\Ioreover, Livy has described e\'ents of early Pioman
History which educated men regard in their details
as imaginary; and Defoe, Swift, and the authors of
Tlie Arabian Niij/its have described events which all
men admit to be imaginary, with such seemingly
authentic details, with such a chaim of reality,
movement, and spirit, that it is sometimes only by
a strong effort of reason that we escape from the
illusion that the nanatives are true. In the absence,
therefore, of any e.xternal evidence on this point, it is
safer to suspend our judgn:ient as to whether any per- I
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 i
which are most entitled to consideration are — 1st. j
That the list which it contains of officers or public i
function;u-ies under David is the result of contem-
porary registration ; and 2ndly. That the Book ,

f It is worthy of note that the prophet Ezekiel never tliere is no mention of the Levltes in the undisputed
uses tlie expression " Lord of Hosts." On the other hand, writings of Isaiab.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 1131

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.
lG-18, ami .\x. 23-26, in regard to which one fact
may be mentioned. It has already been stated
[King, p. 42] that under the Kings there existe<l
an officer called Recorder, Remembrancer, or Chro-
nicler ; in Hebrew, maz/dr. 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 tians-
mitted to us. On the second point, it cannot but be
obseived what prominence is given to pro]]hets 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 way 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 pVophets 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
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
occurs in the Book of Samuel thirteen times. In
the Book of Kjngs it occurs only seven times ; and
in the Book of Chronicles, as far as this is an ori-
ginal or uidependent 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
Book of Samuel. (See 1 Chr. xi. 9 — in the original,
precisely the same words as in 2 Sam. v. 10 ; and
see 1 Chr. xvii. 7, 24-, copied from 2 Sam. vii. 8, 26.)
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 ali the other historical
writings of the Old Testament put together, is a
very fiivourite phrase in some of the great pro-
phetical writings. In Isaiah it occurs sixty-two time.s
(six times only in the chapters xl.-lxvi.), and in Je-
remiah sixty-five times at least. -Again, the predo-
minance of the idea of the prophetical office in
Samuel is shown by the very subordinate place
assigned in it to the Levites. The difference between
the Chronicles and the Book of Samuel in this
respect is even more striking than their difierence
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

1132 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

(1 Sam. vi. 15; 2 Sam. xv. 24), while in Chro-
nicles they are mentioned above thirty times in the
First Boole 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, generallv, to the manner in which the
life of 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-
nicles. Some passages cori'espond almost precisely
word for word ; others 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 be now briefly poiuted out ; though at the same
time it is to be borne in mind that, in drawing in-
ferences fi'om 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. 1.3, 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, ami 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.
2-11) of David's removing the Ark from Kirjath-
jearim, no special mention is made of the priests or
Levites. David's companions are said, generally,
to have been " all the ]jeople that were with hmi,"

e Tacitus records it as a distinguisblng custom of the
Jews,"corporaconderequamcremare, ex more Aegyptio"
{Tlist. v. 5). And it is certain that, in later timos, they
buried dead bodies, and did not burn them ; tliough, not-
withstanding the instance in Gen. 1. 2, they did not,
strictly speaking, embalm them, like the Egyptians.
And though it may be suspected, it cannot bo proved,
that they ever burned their dead in early times. The

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

and " all the house of Israel " are said to have
played before Jehovah on the occasion with all
manner of musical instruments. In the correspond-
ing passage of the Chronicles (1 Chi-, xiii. 1-14)
David is represented as having publicly proposed to
send an invitation to the priests and Levites in
their cities and " suburbs," and this is said to have
been assented to by all ,the congi'egation. Again,
in the preparations which are made for the reception
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 singei's and players
on musical instruments in connexion with the Aik
(1 Chr. XV., xvi. 1-6).

6. The incident of David's dancing in public with
all his might befoi-e Jehovah, when the Ark was
brought into Jerusalem, the censorious remarks of
his wife Michal on David's conduct, David's answer,
and Michal'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 is
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 vei'ses 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 Chi-,
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 ;
and the Moabites became David's servants, and
brought gifts."

8. In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, it is stated that "there was
a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan
the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite (in the ori-
ginal Beit hal-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 Goliath the Gittite." Thus
Lachmi, which in' the former case is merely part of
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 ha\nng been kindled against
Israel, He moved David against them to give oideis

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 is not undoubted that burning is alluded

to. See FUrst, «. v. P]1D. The burning for Asa (2 Chr.

xvi. 1 4) is different from the burning of his body. Compare
Jer. xxxiv. 5; 2 Chr. xxi. 19, 20; Joseph. Ant. xv. 3, iJJ,
Uc Bdl. Jud. i. 33, }9.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

for taking a census of the poj)ul;ition. In the
Chronicles •(! Chr. xxi. 1) it is mentioned thut
David was provoked to take a census of the popu-
latiou hij Satan. This last is the first and the only
instance in which the name of Satan is introduced
into any historical book of the Old Testement. 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. In the incidents connected with the three
days' pestilence upon Israel on account of the census,
some tacts of a veiy remarkable character are nar-
rated in the Chronicles, which are not mentioned in
the earlier histoiy. Thus in Chronicles it is stated
of the Angel of Jehovah, that he stood between the
earth 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'' (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-ofi'ering. Regarding all
these circumstances there is absolute silence in the
corresponding chapter of Samuel.

11. The Chronicles make no mention of the hor-
rible fact mentioned in the Book of Samuel (2 Sam.
xxi. 0-9) 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 baneful 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
instances 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
jiiiiiciples 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 vv'ould he-
sitate to say that all such narratives were copied
from Livy. It would be regarded ;is a very impro-
bable hypothesis that they were copied fi-om docu-
ments to which Livy and the later historian had
equal access, especially when no proof whatever was
adduced that any such original documents were in
existence at the time of the later historian. The
same 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

k The statue of the archangel Michael on the top of the
mausoleum of Hadrian at Rome is in accordance with the
tame idea. In a procession to St. Peter's, during a pes-
tilence, Gregory the Great saw the archangel in a vision.

SANBALLAT

1133

Chronicles were compiled ; and in the absence of
such proof, it must be taken for granted that, where
there is a close verbal correspondence between the
two works, the compiler of the Chronicles co])ipd
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: — Senarii, Seb. Schmidii,
Jo. Clerici, Maur. Commentt. ; Jo. Drusii, An-
notatt. in Locos diffic. Jos., Jud., et Sam. ; Vic-
torini, Strigelii, Comrn. in Libr. Sam., Reg., et Pa-
ralipp.. Lips. 1591, tbl. ; Casp. Sanctii, Comm. in
LV. Lib. Reg: et Paraiipp., 1624-, fol. ; Hensler,
Erkmtor'ingen dcs I. B. Sam. u. d. Salom. Dcnk-
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 Horne, HUvernick, Keil, De Wette, which have
been frequently cited in this work. To these may
be added the following works, which have ap-
peai'ed since the first volume of this Dictionary was
printed : Bleek's Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
Berlin, 1860, pp. 355-368; Stahelin's Speciellc
Einleitung in die Kanonischen Biicher des Alten
Testaments, Elberfeld, 1862, pp. 83-105 ; David-
sou's Introduction to the Old Testament, London
and Edinburgh, 1862, pp. 491-536. [E. T.]

SANABAS'SAR ''Zafx.ava.ffffo.pos ; Alex. Sam-
^dffcrapos: Salmanasarus). Sheshbazzar (1 Esd.
ii. 12, 15 ; comp. Ezr. i. 8, 11).

SANABAS'SAEUS {S.a&avaffffapos ; Alex.
'S.ava^affffapos : Solinanasarus). SlIESIIBAZZAB
(1 Esd. vi. 18, 20 ; comp. Ezr. v. 14, 16).

SAN'ASIB {-iavaffi^; Alex. 'Avaaei^: Eli-
asib). The sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, are
reckoned " among the sons of Sanasib," as priests
who retumed with Zorobabel (1 Esd. v. 24).

SANBAL'LAT {'ch^^O : 2ava/3aAAaT : Sana-
ballat). Of uncertain etymology; according to Gese-
nius after von Bofclen, meaning in Sanscrit " giving
strength to the army," but according to Fiirst " a
chestnut tree." A Moabite of Horonaim, as appears
by his designation " Sanballat the Horonite " ( Neh.
ii. 10, 19, xiii. 28). All that we know of him
fi'om Scripture is that he haii 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 Tirshatha.
His companions in this hostility were Tobiah the
Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian (Neh. ii. 19,
iv. 7). For the details of their opposition the
reader is referred to the articles Neuemiah and

as he is supposed to be represented in the statue. It is
owing to this that the fortress subsequently had the name
of the Castle of St. Angelo. See Murray's Handbook foi-
Rome, p. 67, 6th edit. 1862.

1134

SANBALLAT

Nehemiah, Book of, and to Neh. vi., where the
enmity between Sanballat and the Jews is brouglit
out in the strongest colours. The only other inci-
dent in his lite is his alliance with the high-priest's
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 pait of a
settled policy concerted between Eliashib and the
Samaritan faction. The expp.lsion from tlie priest-
hood of the guiltv son of Joiada by Nehemiah
must have still further widened the breach between
him and Sanballat, and between the two parties in
the Jewish state. Here, however, the Scriptui-al
narrative ends — owing, probably, to Nehemiah's
return to Persia — and with it likewise o^^i" know-
ledge of Sanballat.

But on turning to the pages of Josephus a
wholly new set of actions, in a totally different
time, is brought before lis 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 inteiposing the whole reign of
Artaxei'xes Longimanus between the death of Nehe-
miah and the transactions in which Sanballat took
part, and utteily ignoring the very existence of Darius
Nothus, 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, i. e, a
Samaritan, by birth, and that he gave his daughter
Nicaso in marriage to IManasseh, 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 Sanballat's
government, but to sanction the building of a rival
temple on IMount Gerizim of which Manasseh
should be the high-priest. Manasseh on this agreed
to retain his wife and join Sanballat'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, §+). Being favourably received by the con-
queror, he took the opportunity of speaking to him
in behalf of Manasseh. He represented to him how
much 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
Alexander's pci'mission to build the temple on
Mount Gerizim, and make Manasseh the heredi-
tary high-priest. Shortly after this, Sanballat died ;

a He says that Alexander appointed Andromachus
governor of Judea and the neighbouring districts ; tliat
the Samaritans murdered him ; and that Alexander on
his return look Samaria in revenge, and settled a colony
of Macedonians in it, and the inhabitants of Samaria
retired to Slchem.

*• Such a time, e. g., as when the Book of Ecclesiastics
was written, in which we read (ch. 1. 25, 26), " There Ije
two manner of nations which mine heart abliorrcth, and
the third is no nation : they that sit upon the mountain
of Samaria^ and they that dwell among the Philistines,
and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem."

SANDAL

but the temple on Moimt 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 Josephus's account. Jf 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 of
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* {Chron. 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 tlie Greeks, and at a time when the
enmity of the Jews and Samaritans was at its
height,'' 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 anv
regard to chronology or other propriety, was
the regular method of such apociyphal books.
See 1 lilsJias, 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. Eor a furtlier
discussion of this subject, see the article Nehe-
miah, Book of, 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 (Py: : vwSS-nna, <TwSd\iov). 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 na'al^ implies such an
article, its proper sense being that of con/jim^f or
shutting in the foot witli thongs : we have also
express notice of the thong >* ('Tinb' ; lixds ; A. V.

c 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—
(vizT. " 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 signify ing that the blood was sprinkled
on (he thong of the sandal, the second that men should
cross the river on foot instead of in boats. Tlic shoes
found in Egypt probably belonged to Greeks CWilkinson,
ii. 333).

'' Thf terms applied to the removal of the .=;hoe (^OH-

SANDAL

"shoe-latchet") in several passages (Gen. xiv. 23;
Is. V. 27 ; Mark i. 7). The Greek term virdS-n/xa
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 wiiteis, as it was applied to any covering of
the foot, even to the military caliga of the Romans
(Joseph. B. J. vi. 1, §8). A similar observation
applies to aavSaKiov, which is used in a general,
and not in its strictly classical sense, and was adopted
in a Hebraized . mi by the Talmudists. We have
no description of the sandal in the Bible itself, but
the deficiency can be supplied from collateral sources.
Thus we learn from the Talmudists that the ma-
terials employed in the construction of the sole
were either leather, felt, cloth, or wood (Mishn.
Jeham. 12, §1, 2), and that it was occasionally
shod with iron {Sahh. 6. §2). In Egypt various
fibrous substances, such as ^lalm leaves and papyrus
stalks, were used in addition to eather (Herod, 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 appe:u- to have been

SANDAL

3135

Assyiian Sandals. (From Layard, ii. 234.)

the case in Palestine, for a heel-strap was essential
to a proper sandal {Jeham. 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. 10), whether a hyena or a seal (A. V.
"badger"), is doubtful: the skins of a hsh (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 (Z'«cf.o/.4Mf. 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 dnd
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.
xii. 11; Josh. ix. 5, 13; Acts xii. 8): on such
occasions persons carried an extra pair, a practice
which cm- Lord objected to as far as the Apostles

wei-e concerned (Matt. x. 10 ; compare Mark vi. 9,
and the expression in Luke x. 4, "do not airry,"
which hai-monizes the passages). An exti-a pair
might in ceitain 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 Paschal
feast (Ex. xii. 11) ; the same custom must have
pievailed wherever reclining at meals was practised
(comp. Plato, Syinpos. p. 213). It was a mark of
reverence to cast off the shoes in approaching a place
or person of eminent sanctity : ' hence the com-
mand to Moses at the bush (Ex. iii. 5) and to
Joshua in the presence of the angel (,Iosh. v. 15).
In deference to these injunctions the priests are said
to have conducted their ministrations in the Temple
barefoot (Theodoret, ad Ex. iii. qiiaest. 7), and the
Talmudists even forbade any person to pass through
the Temple with 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 Besearches, 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
Nudipedaiia from this featuie (Tertull. Apol. 40).
To cany or to unloose a person's sandal was a me-
nial ortice betokening great inferiority on the part
ot the person performing it ; it was "hence selected
by John the Baptist to express his relation to the
Messiah (Matt. iii. 11; Mark :. 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 compai'ison is obscure ; for it may
refer either to the custom of handing the sandal tu
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 may be regarded in the still more sub-
ordinate position of a shelf on which the sandals
were rested while their owner bathed his feet. The
use of the shoe in the transfer of property is noticed
in Ruth iv. 7, 8, and a similar significancy was
attached to the act in connexion with tlie repudia-
tion of a Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 9). Shoe-

Deut. xxv. 10; Is. xx. 2; and *Q^, Ruth iv. 7) Imply
that the thongs were either so numerous or ao broad as
almost to cover the top of the foot.

« It is worthy of observation that the tenn used for
"putting off" the shoes on these occasions is peculiar
Ot^D). and conveys the notion of violence and haste.

1136

SANHEDRIM

making, or rather strap-making {i. e. making the , is not a perfect agreement among the learned
straps for the sand;\lsj, was a recognised trade among The nearly unanimous opinion of the Jews is given
the Jews (Mishn. i-'esoc/i. 4, §6j. [W. L. B.] " " '" ' '" ' ' ' "' " " —

SAN'HEDRIM (accurately Sanhedrin.innnjp.
formed from ffvveSptov : the attempts of the Rab-
bins to find a Hebrew etymology are idle ; Buxtorf,
Lex. Chald. s. v.), called also in the Talmud the

in the Mishna (Sanhedr. i. 6) : " the gi'eat iSan-
hediim consisted of seventy-one judges. How is
this proved? From Num. xi. 16, where it is
said, ' gather unto me seventy men of the elders of
Israel.' To these add Moses, and we have seventy-
Nevei-theless R. Judah says there wore

great Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jewish j seventy." The same difference made by the addi
people in the time of Christ and earlier. In the j ^j^^ ^r exclusion of Jloses, appeals in the works
Mishna it is also styled ]''"'] n*3, Beth Lin, "house ' of Christian writers, which accounts for the vaiia-
of judgment." j tion in the books between seventy and seventy-

1. The origin of this assembly is traced in the | one. Baionius, however {Ad Ann. 31, §10), and
lilishna (Sanhedr. i. 6) to the seventy elders I many other Roman Catholic writers, together witji
whom Moses was directed (Num. xi. 16, 17) to ^ not a few Piotestants, as Dnisius, Grotiiis, Pri-
associate with him in the government of the ; deaux, Jahn, Bretschneider, etc., hold that the true
Israelites. This body continued to exist, according I nunroer 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, should be added to the seventy (see Hartmann,
Seldeu, and Grotius have held the same view. Verbindung des A. T. p. 182; tieUen, De Synedr.
Since the time of Vorstius, who toolc the ground ; lib. ii. cap. 4). Between these three numbeis,
{De Synhedriis, §2.5-40) that the alleged identity ' that given by the prevalent Jewish tradition is
between the assembly of seventy elders mentioned certainly to be preferred ; but if, as we have
in Num. xi. 16, 17, and the Sanhedrim which seen, there is really no evidence for the identity
existed in the later period of the Jewish common- ; of the seventy elders summoned by Jloses, and
wealth, was simply a conjecture of the Raljbins, and ' the Sanhedrim existing after the Babylonish caji-
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- boily consisted, has no force, and we are left, as
ally admitted that the tribunal established by Moses Keil maintains (^rc/iao'ojje, ii. §259), without
was probably temporary, and did not continue to any certain information on the point.

exist after the Israelites had enteied Palestine (Winer,
Realworterh. art. " Synedrium ").

In the lack of definite historical information as
to the establishment of the Sanhedrim, it can
only be said in general that the Greek etymology
of the name seems to point to a period subse-
quent to the Macedonian supremacy in Palestine.
Livy expressly states (xiv. 32), " pronuntiatum
quod ad stiitum Macedoniae pertinebat, senatores,
quos synedros ^'ocant, legendos esse, quorum con-
silio respublica administraretur." The fact that
Herod, when procurator of Galilee, was sum-
moned before the Sanhedrim (B.C. 47) on the
ground that in putting men to death he had
usurped the authority of the body (Jos. Ant. xiv.
9, §4) shows that it then possessed much power
and was not of very recent origin. If the yepov-
ffia Toiv 'lovSaiusv, 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-
nean princes.

In the silence of Philo, Josephus, and the Mishna
respecting the constitution of the Sanhedrim, we
are obhged to depend upon the few incidental
notices in the New Testament. From these we
gather that it consisted of apxi^p^'is, chief
priests, or the heads of the twenty-four classes
into which the priests were divided (including,
])robably, those who had been high-priests), irpea--
^vrepoi, elders, men of age and experience, and
ypajxixarus, scribes, lawyers, or those learned in
the Jewish law (Matt. xxvi. 57, 59; Mark xv. 1 ;
Luke x.\ii. 06 ; Acts v. 21).

2. The number of members is usually given as
seventv-one, but this is a point on which there

The president of this body was styled N^^J,
Nasi, and, according to Maimonides and Lightfoot,
was chosen on account of his eminence in worth
and wisdom. Often, if not generally, this pre-
eminence was accorded to the high-priest. That
the high-priest presided at- the condemnation of
Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 62) is plain from the narra-
tive. The vice-president, called in the Talmud
|''"n n"'3 Il{<, "father of the house of judgment,"
sat at the right hand of the president. Some writers
speak of a second vice-president, styled DDH
" wise," but this is not sufficiently confirmed (see
Selden, De Synedr. p. 156, seq.). The Babylonian
Gemara states that there were two scribes, one of
whom registered the votes for acquittal, the other
those for condemnation. In Matt. xxvi. 58 ;
Mark xiv. 54, &c., the lictors or attendants of
the Sanhedrim are refen-ed to under the name of
inrripfrai. While in session the Sanhedrim sat in
the form of a half circle {Gem. Ilieros. 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 ma-ster Moses. Likewise him
who is the oldest among the seventy, they place
on the right hand, and him they call ' father of
the hofase'of judgment.' The rest of the seventy
sit before these two, according to their dignity, iu
the form of a semicircle, so that the president and
vice-president may have them all in sight."

3. The 2^i<^^ in which the sessions of the San-
hedrim were ordinarily hold was, according to the
Talmud, ahall called lf-T5, Gazzith {Sanhedr. x.),
supposed by Lightfoot ( Works, i. 2005) to have
been situated in the south-east comer of one of the
courts near the 'lemple building. In special exi-

SANSANNAH

gencies, however, it seems to have met in tlie
residence of the high-priest (Matt. xxvi. 8). Forty
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and con-
sequently while tlie Saviour was teaching in Pales-
tine, the sessions of the Sanhedrim weie removed
from the hall Gazzith to a somewhat greater
distance from the temple buiUing, although still
on Mt. Moriah (Abod. Ziira i. Gem. Baby), ad
Sanhedr. v.). After several other clianges, its
seat was finally established at Tiberias (Lightfoot,
Wor/is, ii. 365).

As a judicial body the Sanhedrim constituted a
supreme court, to which belonged in the first
instance the trial of a tiibe fallen into idolatry,
lalse prophets, and the high-priest (Mishna, San-
hedr. i.) ; also the other priests (ifiddoth, v.).
As an administrative council it determined other
important niatteis. 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 is.
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 takea away from this
tribunal forty years before the destruction of Jeru-
salem. With this agrees the answer of the Jews
to Pilate (John six. 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 (x\cts vii. 56, &c.) is only
an apparent exception, for it was either a tu-
nmltuous 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 procuiator to have been (Winer, Eealwh.
art. " Synedrium ").

The Talmud also mentions a lesser Sanhedrim of
twenty-three members in every city in Palestine in
which were not less than 1 20 householders ; but
respecting these judicial bodies Josephus is entirely
silent.

The leading work on the subject is Selden, De
Synedriis et Praefeduris Jiiridicis vcterum 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 monogi-aphs of Vorstius and W^itsius,
contained in Ugolini's Thesaurus, 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 iSanhedrim, with
which may be compared I>uo Tituli Talmudioi
Sanliedriti et Maccoth, ed. Jo. Coch, Amst. 1629,
4to., and Maimonides, De Sanhedriis et Poenis,
ed. Houting. Amst. 1695, 4to. Hartmann, Die
Verhindmifi des Alien Testaments mit dem Neuen,
Hamb. 18:31, 8vo., is worthy of consultation, and
for a compressed exhibition of the subject, Winer,
Rcalwb. and Keil, Archacolojie. [G. D. E.~|

SANSAN'NAH (n3D3D : Seflewci/c ; Alex.
2,av(rauva: 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
small groups, like those of the highlands or the

VOL. II.

SAPIIIK

1137

Shefelah ; and as only very few of tliem have been
yet identified, we have nothing to guide us to the
position of Sansannah. It can hardlv h.ave had any
connexion with Kikjath-Sannah (Kirjath-Sepher,
or Debir), which was probably near Hebron, many
miles to the north of the most northern position
possilile for Sansannaii. It does not appear to be
mentioned by any explorer, ancient or modern.
Gesenius {Tnes. 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 conjecture
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.
Mau.mannah).

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 tlie two last the place of Mad-
mannah and Sansannah respectively in the first.
In like manner Shilhim is oxclumged 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-mai-caboth and Hazar-susim are tokens
of the trade in chariots and horses which ai'ose in
Solomon's time ; but, if so, how conies it that the
new names bear so close a lesemblance in form to
the old ones ? [G.]

SAPH(?lp: 2e>; Alex. Se^e: Saph). One

of the sons of the giant {'Vacpd, Arapha) slain by
Sibbechai the Hushathite in the battle against the
Philistines at Gob or Gaza (2 Sam. xxi. 18). In
1 Chr. sx. 4 he is called SiPPAl. 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-
quered."

SA'PHAT {^a^6.T : om. in Vulg.). She-
PHATIAH 2(1 Esd. V. 9 ; comp. Eer. ii. 4).

SAPHATI'AS (Sa^aTi'as : Saphatias). She-
PHATIAH 2 (1 Esd. viii. 34 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 8).

SA'PHETH (2a(/)uj; Alex. 2a^i;0t' : Saphmi).
Shephatiah (1 Esd. v. 33; comp. Ezr. ii. 57).

SA'PHIR ("l^SK', t. e. Shaphir : Ka\us : 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-Sau-dfir still exists (or rather three of that name,
two with affixes), possibly the representative of
the ancient Saphir (Rob. B. R. ii. S4: note ; Van
de Velde, Syr. ^ 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-

4 D

1138

SAPPHIRA

stiind how any place could be westward of it (». e.
between it and Ascalou), 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 tiie reverse was the case with
some others. [Keilah ; Nezih, &c.]

Schwarz, though aware of the existence of Sa-
wafir (p. 116), suggests as a more feasible identifi-
cation the village of Safirhjeh, 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.]

SAPPHFEA (2aTr(^ef/3r; = either "sapphire,"
from crdir(p(ipos, or " beautiful," fi-om the Syriac
NT5C'). 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 tliat of Ananias's, which
might otherwise have been attributed to natural
causes. [W. L. B.]

SAPPHIRE (T'SD, sajiptr : adTr(peipos : 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 " (com p. 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 crdTr<p€ipos,
and scq-tphirus 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 desciiption 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 ti-anspa-
rency, great value and good material for the en-
graver's art, all of which combined chaiacters the
Lapis-lazuli does not possess in any great degree.
Mr. King {Antique Gems, p. 44) says that intagli
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
Judaeos," says Biaun {I>c Vest,. Sac. y. 6S0, ed.
1680), " saphiros ])pllucid;i.s notas fuisso manifcstis-
simum est, adeo etiam ut pcllucidum illonnn phi-

SARAH

losophis dicatur TSD, Saphir." Beckmann {Hist,
of Invent, i. 472) is of opinion that the Sappir ol
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 satistiictory conclusion. [W. H.J

SA'RA (2d;5po : Sara). 1. Sarah, the wife
of Abraham (Heb. xi. 11 ; 1 Pet. iii. 6).

2. The daughter of Raguel, in the apocryphal
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 mauled to Tobias,
are told in chap. viii.

SARABI'AS {'Za.pa^ias : Sarehias). Shere-
BiAH (1 Esd. ix. 48; comp. Neh. viii. 7).

SA'RAH (m'kT, "princess:" Stip^a: Sara:
originally '•"lEi' : 2apa : 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 Mher 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 jirincess ;" 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 Tetragrammaton Jehovah, to
the names of Abram and Sarai, mystically signified
their being received into covenant with the Lord.
Air.ong modern Hebraists there is great divoisity of
intci-|iretaticin. One opinion, keeping to the same
general derivation as that referred to above, explains

SAKAH

"Sai:ii"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 nnb* {Serdydh), 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 T\''\^, a root
wliich is found in Gen. xxxii. 28, Hos. xii. 4, in the
sense of " to fight," and explains it as " conten-
tious" istreitsiichtuj). This last seems to^ be
etymologically the most probable, and differs from
the others in giving gi-eat force and dignity to the
change of name. (See Ges. TVics. 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 accom))anied him in all the wandeiings
of his life. Her only independent action is the de-
mand that Hagar and Ishmael sliould be cast out,
far from all rivalry with her and Isaac ; a demand,
symboliailly applied in Gal. iv. 22-31, to the dis-
])'lacement 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-
)aoh and towards Abimelech. On the first oc-
c;ision, 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-
ch:ised of Ephron the Hittite, was the only posses-
sion of Abraham in the land of promise ; it has re-
mainetl, 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 Kebekah
on the one side, and those of Jacob and Leah on the
other (See Stanley's Led. 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-
iijiior to that of her husband, and truly feminine,
botli 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
imtorgiving 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 othere 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).

* Note the significant remarlc on Isaac's marriage (Gen.
xxiv. 6<), " 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

BARAMEL

1139

To the same chaiacter belong her ironical laughter
at the promise of a child, long desired, but now
beyond all hope; her trembling denial of that
laughter, and her change of it to the laughter ol'
thankful joy, which she commemorated in the name
of ls:wc. It is a character deeply and truly atfec-
tionate, but impulsive, jealous, and imperious in
its affection. It is referred to in the N. T. as a
tyjTe of conjugal obedience in 1 Pet. iii. 0, and ius
one of the types of faith in Heb. xi. 11. [A. U.]

2. (nib: 2cipa: Sara). Serah the daughter
of Asher (Num. xxvi. 4G).

SAEA'I(nb: 2apo: Sardi). 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 s;mie 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 (Sapai'or: om. in Vulg.). 1. Se-
RAIAH the high-in-iest (1 Esd. v. 5).

2. ('A^apaios ; Alex. Sapoias : Azarias, Aza-
rcus.) Sekaiah the father of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 1 ;
2 Esd. i. 1).

SAE'AMEL (2apa/x«V; Alex. 2a/>a^eA ; other
MSS. 'Atrapa/it'A. : 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 Jlaccabees 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.'' 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 Sarheth . Sabanai El, given by
Eusebius as the title of the Maccabae;m history.
[See Maccabees, vol. ii. 173 a.] 3. Hasshaar Am
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,
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 tact that
without it Simon is here styled high-priest only,
and his second title, " captain and governoi- of tiie
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-SjTiac version, which certaiuly omits the
title of " high-priest," but inserts T abba de Israel,

sacrifice of Isaac, that the shock of it killed her, and that
Abraham found her dead on his return from Moriah.

b Junius and Tremellius render it by in atrio muni-
lionis. ^

4 D 2

1140 SAKAPH

" leader of Israel." None of these explanations, how-
ever, can be regarded as entirely satisfactory. [G.]

SA'KAPH (fpy : ^apaxj) : Incendens). Men-
tioned in 1 Chr. iv. 22 amon;^; the descendants of
Shelah the son of Jadah. Buirington {Geneal.
i. 179) makes Saraph a descendant of Jolcim, whom
he regards as the third son of Shelah. In the
Targuin of R. Joseph, Joash and Saraph are iden-
tified with Mahlon and Chilion, " who married
(6V2 ) in Jloab."

SARCHE'DONUS (taxepSovSs, Sax^pSai' :

Arcliedonnssar, Achenossar, Sarcedonassar), a col-
lateral form of the name Ksar-haddon [EsaK-iiad-
uonJ, occurring Tob. i. 21. The form in A. V. for
Sacherdunus appears to be an oversight. [B. F. W.]

SARDE'US ( Zepa\ia9 ; Alex. ZapSaTos : The-
bedias). Aziza (1 Esd. ix. 28 ; comp. Ezr. x. 27).

SARDINE, SARDIUS (On'K, odem: <rdp-
Siov: sardiiis) is, according to the LXX. and
Josephus (Bell. 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 the
wall of the heavenly Jerusalem was a sardius (Rev.
xxi. 20). There can scarcely be a doubt that either
the sard or the sardonvx 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 (Z)e Vest. Sue. Hch. p. 635) has
remarked, Josephus was not only a Jew but a priest,
who might have seen the breastplate with the whole
sacerdotal vestments a hundred times, since in his
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 of
Concord ; hence it will readily be acknowledged that
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 engiaver's
art; "on this stone," says Mr. King {Antique
Gems, p. 5), " all the finest works of the most
celebrated artists are to be 'bund ; and this not
without good cause, such is its toughness, facility
of' working, beauty of colour, and the high polish
of which it is susceptible, and which Pliny states
that it retains longer than any other gem." Sards
differ in colour; there is a bright red variety which,
in Pliny's time, was the most esteemed, and, per-
haps, the Heb. odem, from a root which means " to
be led," points to this kind ; there is also a paler or
honey-coloured variety; but in all sards there is
.always a shade of yellow mingling with the red
(see King's Ant. Gems, p. 0). The sardius, ac-
cording to Pliny (AT. H. xxxvii. 7), derived its
name from Sardis in Lydia, where it was first
found ; Babylonian specimens, however, were the

SARDIS

most esteemed. The Hebrews, in the time of Moses,

could easily have obtained their sard stones from
Arabia, in which country they were at the time the
breastplate was made ; other precious stouus not ac-
quirable during their wanderings, may have been
brought with them from the land of their Ijondage
when " they spoiled the Egyptians." [W. H.J

SAR'DIS '2ap5eis,. A city situated about two
miles to the south of the river Hermus, just below
the range of Tmolus {Bos Daijh), on a spur of
which its acropolis was built. It was the ancient
residence of the kings of Lydia. After its conquest
by Cyrus, the Persians always kept a garrison in the
citadel, on account of its natural strength, which
induced Alexander the Great, when it was surren-
dered to him in the sequel of the battle of the Gra-
nicus, similarly to occupy it. Sardis was in very
earlv times, both from the extremely fertile cha-
racter 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 ^dXavoi
^apStavoi. The art of dyeing wool is said by Pliny
to have been invented there ; and at any i ate, Sardis
was the entrepot of the dyed woollen manufactures,
of which Phrygia with its vast flocks {-jroAvirpo^U-
Twrdrrj, Heiod. v. 49) furnishefl the raw material.
Hence we hear of the <f>0LviKlSes ^apStavai, and
Sappho speaks of the iroi(ctA.os jtia(r0AT)S AvSlov
KaKhw ipyov, which was perhaps something like
the modern Turkish carpets. Some of the woollen
manufactures, of a peculiarly fine texture, were
called i|/iAoTa7rtS€s. 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 \J/iAoTaTri5es SapSiawi were laid as a mattrass.
Sardis too was the place where the metal electrum
was procured (Soph. Antiij. 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 I'rom Tmolus, and ran through
the aqora of Sardis by the side of the gi'eat 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 impoiiance 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 /co-
TTTjAot (stationary traders as contradistinguished
from the efiTropoi, or travelling merchants) first
arose. It was also, at any rate between the fall of
the Lydian and that of the Persian dynasty, a
slave-mart.

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 for
the next three hundred years are very obscure. It
chancred hands more than once in the contests
between the dynasties which arose after the death
of Alexander. " In the year 214 n.C, it was taken
and sacked by the army of Antiochus the Great, who
besieged his cousin Achaeus in it for twoycais before
succeeding, as he at last did through treachery, in

SARDIS

obtaining poascssion of the person of tiie latter.
After the ruin of Antiochus's foitunes, it p;issed,
witli the rest of Asia on that side of Taurus, under
the dominion of the kings of I'ergamus, 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
appeals to have diminished from the time of the
mvasioii of Asia by Alexander. Of the few inscrip-
tions wliich have been discovered, all, or nearly all,
belong to the time of the Roman empire. Yet there
still exist consideraljle remains of the earlier days.
The massive temple of Cybebe still bears witness in
its fragmentary I'cmains 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 architiave, the stone of which
stretched in a single block tiom the centre of one to
that of the other. This stone, although it was not
the largest of the architrave, he calculates must

SAKDIS

1141

have weighed 25 tons. The diameters of the co-
lumns supporting it are 6 feet 4J inches at about
3.5 feet below the capital. The present soil (appa-
rently formed by the crumbling away of the hill
which backs the temple on its eastern sidej is moie
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, " the capitals ap-
peared," to Mr. Cockercll, " 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 theatie
near 400 feet in diameter, attached to a stadium of
about 1000. This probably was elected after the
restoration of Sardis by Alexander. In the attack
of Sardis by Antiochus, descril^ed by I'olybius (vii.
15-18;, it constituted one of the chief points on
which, after entering the city, the assaulting force

wns directed. The temple belongs to the era of the
l.ydian dynasty, and is nearly contemporaneous
with the temple of Zeus Panhellenius in Aegina,
and that of Here in Samos. To the s;ime date may
be assigned the " Valley of Sweets " lyXvKvs 0:7-
Ku>v),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 Scft-
Kalcssi. 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 f Hei-mus), 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 ;is unfit for drinking,
but have the local reputation of generating the fever
which is the scourge of the neighbouring plains.

In the tinie of the emperor Tiberius, Sai-dis was

desolated by an earthquake, together with eleven, or
as Eusebius says twelve, other imporbuit 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 ol
the Asiatic cities, a temple to their benefactor.
[Smyrna.] On this ocuision 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 file time of Pliiiv it was included in tlie same

1142

SARDITES. THE

conventus juridicus with Philadelj)bia, with the
Cadueni, a Macedouiau colony in the neighbourhood,
with some settlements of the old JIaeonian popula-
tion, and a few other towns of less note. These
Maeonians still continued to call Sardis by its ancient
name Hydfe, which it bore in the time of Omphale.

The only passage in which Sardis is mentioned
in the Bilale, 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 spiiitual 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;
Stephanas Byz. v. "TStj ; Pausanias, iii. 9, 5 ;
Diodorus Sic. xx. 107 ; Scholiast, Aristoph. Pac.
1174; Boeckh, Iiiscriptiones Graecae, Nos. 3451-
3472 ; Herodotus, i. 69, 94, iii. 48, viii. 105 ;
Strabo, xiii. §5 ; Tacitus, Annnl. ii. 47, iii. 63, iv. 55 ;
Cockerell, in Leake's Asia Minor, p. 343 ; Arundell,
Discoveries in Asia Minor, i. pp. 26-28 ; Tchi-
hatchetf, Asie Mineure, pp. 232-242.) [J. W. B.]

SAR'DITES, THE O'l'lDn : b SapeSi': Sa-

reditac). The descendants of Sered the son of Zebulon
(Num. xxvi. 26).

SARDONYX (trapSoj/ul : sardonyx) is men-
tioned in the N. T. once only, viz., in liev. xxi. 20,
as the stone which garnished the fifth foundation of
the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem. " By sai-donyx,"
says Pliny (iV. 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 sti-atum of the true red
sard" {Antique Geins, p. 9); it is, like the sard,
merely a variety of agate, and is frequently em-
ploved 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 (SapeTTTo: Sarepta: Syriac, Tsar-
path). The Greek form of the name which in the
Hebrew text of the 0. T. appears as Zahephath.
The place is designated by the same formula on its
single occurrence in the N. T. (Luke iv. 20) that
it is when first mentioned in the LXX. version of
1 K. xvii. 9, " Sarepta of Sidonia." [G.j

SAR'GON {pjl"}D: 'kpva: Sargon) was one
of the greatest of the Assyrian kings. His name is
read in the native inscriptions as Sargina, while a
town which he built and called after himself (now
lihorsabad) 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
ti lose mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, but rather
one of those kings under another name. N'itringa,
Offerhaus, Eichhorn, and Hupfeld identified him
with Shalmaueser; Grotius, Lowth, and Keil with
Sennacherib ; Perizonius, Kalinsky, and Michaelis

* There is a peculiarity of phraseology in 2 K. xviii.
9, 10, which perhaps nidicates a knowledge on the part
ol the writer that .Shahnaneser was not tlic actual captor.

SARGON

witli Esarliaddon. All these conjectures are now
shown to be wrong by the Assyrian inscriptions,
which prove Sargou to have been distinct and
different from the several monarchs named, and fix
his place in the list — where it had been already as-
signed by Piosenmiiller, Gesenius, Ewald, and Winer
— between Shalmaueser and Sennacherib. He was
certainly Sennacherib's father, and tliere is no reason
to doubt that he was his immediate predecessor.
He ascended the throne of Assyria, as we gather
fi'om 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 hits been conjectured that
he took advantage of Shalmanesev's absence at the
protracted siege of Samaria (2 K. xvii. 5) to eflisct
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 his
predecessor. He places the e\-ent in his 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 otlier name being mentioned.* Or perhaps he
claimed the conquest as his own, though Shalmaneser
really accomplished it, because the capture of the
city occuiTed 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 (Khabonr), the river of Gozan, and (at
a later period probably) in the cities of the Jledes.

Sargon 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, Jledia on the east,
Armenia and Cappadocia towards the north, Syria,
Palestine, Arabia, and Egj'pt towards the west and
the south-west. In Babylonia he deposed Merodach-
Baladan, and established a viceroy ; in Jledia 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 Sai-
gon's name in Scripture. Isaiah was instructed at
the time of this expedition to " put otf his shoe, and
go naked and barefoot," for a sign that " the king
of Assyria should lend away the Egyptians pri-
soners, and the Ethiojiians ca))tives, young and old,
naked and barefoot, to the shame of Egyi)t " (Is.
XX. 2-4). We may gather from this, either that
Ethiopians and Egyptians fonned part of the garri-

" In the fourth yearof Hezekiah," he says, "Shalmaneser
king (if Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it :
and at the end of tlinv years, they took it."

SARID

son of Ashdod and were captured with the city,
or tliat the attack on the Philistine town was ac-
companied by an invasion of Egypt itself, which
was disastrous to the Kgyptians. The year of the
atbick, being B.C. 712, would fall into the reign
of the first Ethio])ian king, Sabaco I., who probably
conquered Egypt in B.C. 714 (Rawlinson's Hero-
dotus, i. .'380, 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 thei-e is some reason to think
that he conducted an attack in person.'"

It is not as a wariior only tliat Sargon deserves
.special mention among the Assyrian kings. He w;is
also the builder of useful works and of one of the
most magnificent of the Assyrian palaces. He
relates that he thoi-oughly 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 Sargon's buildings
have been found also at Nimrud and Koyunjik ; and
his time is marked by a considerable advance in the
useful and ornamental arts, which seem to have
profited by the conne.\ion 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 celebrateil Sen-
nacherib. [G. R.]

SA'EID (T'nb' : 'Ea-e5€K7a,Aas SeSSoi^ic ; Alex.

2ap9i5, 2api5 : 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
{Onoin. " Sarith ").

The ancient Syriac version, in each case, reads
Asdod. This may be only from the inteichange,
so frequent in this version, of R and I). At any
rate, the Ashdod of the Philistines cannot be in-
tended. [G.]

SA'RON {rhv '2,ap5)va ; in some MSS. acrira-
puva, i. e. piCJTI : Sarona). The district in which

Lydda stood (Acts ix. 35 only); the Sharon of
the O. 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 (:Sapa>ei ; Alex. 2apa)0te : Ca-
7-oneth). "The sons of Sarothie" are among the
sons of the servants of Solomon who retui'ned with
Zorobabel, according to the list in 1 Esd. v. 34.
Theie is nothing corresponding to it in the Hebrew.

SAE'SECHIM (D^SpnK': Sarsachim). One
of the generals of Nebuchadnezzar's army at the

SATAN

1143

taking of Jerusalem (Jer. xxxix. 3). He appears
to have held the office of chief eunuch, for Rjib-
saris is probably a title and not a proper name.
In Jer. xxxix. 13 Nebushasban is called Rab-saris,
" chief eunuch," and the question arises whether
Nebushasban and Sarscchim may not be names of
the same person. In the LXX., verses 3 and l.'-i
are mixed up together, and so hopelessly corrupt
that it is impo.ssible to infer anything from their
reading of NajSoutraxap for Sarsechim. In Gese-
nius' Thesaurus it is conjectured that Sarsecliim
and Rab-saris may be identical, and both titles of
the same office.

SA'RUCH {"Zapovx ■ Sarug). Serug the son
of Reu (Luke iii. 35).

SA'TAN. The word itself, the Hebrew ]Db,
is simply an "adversary," and is so used in 1 Sam.
xxix. 4 ; 2 Sam. xix. 22; 1 K. v. 4 (LXX. eVi-
0ov\os) ; in 1 K. si. 25 (LXX. avriK^iixevos) ; in
Num. xxii. 22, 32, and Ps. cix. 6 (LXX. SidySoAoy
and cognate words) ; in 1 K. xi. 14, 23 (LXX.
ffaT(iv). This original sense is still found in our
Lord's application of the name to St. Peter in Matt.
xvi. 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 Sid&oXos, and the Vulgate Satan. In the N. T.
the word is (raravas, followed by the Vulgate
Satanas, except in 2 Cor. xii. 7, where ffaTav is
used. It is found in twenty-five places (exclusive
of parallel passages), and the corresponding word
SiojSoAos in about the same number. The title
o apxcDV Tov kSct/xuv tovtov is used three times ;
6 -novTipSs is used certainl}' six times, probably more
frequently, and b Tretpd^aiv 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
action.

(A.) His Existence. — It would be a waste of
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 qualify, everv
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 suj)-
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 Peison 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 aathority
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 ").

b 'I'he statue of Sargon, now in the Berlin Museum, was tlie expedition in person,
found at Id;ilium in Cyprus. It is not very liliely tliat llie j "^ Tliis Imiljarous word is obtained by joining to Sarid
kings statue would have been set up unless he had made the first word of the following verse, nSyi.

1144

SATAN

It is true, that human thoiiglit can assert an
a priori probability or improbability in such state-
ments made, based on the perception of a greater or
less degree of accordance in principle between tlie
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 oteervation. In
the discussion of the Plurality of Worlds, for e.x-
ample, it may be asserted without doubt, that in
all the orbs of the univeise the Divine power, wis-
dom, and goodness must be exercised ; but the in-
ference 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 supernatnral 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-
probable.

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 fiom 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
overrulefl 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
obseiTation 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 aflirmative, 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 wav, 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 retiir the resiiluum 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 powei-,
and destined to be overcome by Him at last. Be-

• See Wlsd. ii. 24, tt>96v(f Si SiaP6\ov BayarcK eiariXOev

tU TOl' KOUfLOV.

•> For this reason, if for no other, it seems impossible to
icccpt the interpretation of " Axazel," given by Spencer,

SATAN

tween these two extremes the mind varied, through
many gradations of thought and countless fomis of
superstition. Each hypothesis had its argimients
of probability against the other. The fii'st laboured
under the ditficulty of being insutflcient 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
certainty.

The Revelation of Sciipture, speaking with au-
thority, meets the. truth, and removes the error,
inherent in both these hvpotheses. It asseits in
the strongest terms the perfect supi-emacy 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 ; Am. 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 P'all itself, was etTected
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 fiom the influence of an
Evil Spirit, exercising that mysterious power ot'
fi'ee 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-
gressiveuess 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* the conclusion that something
more than a mere animal agency was at work ; but
tlie 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. 2.3).

Throughout the whole peiiod 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 all His su-
preme and unapproachable Jlajesty; 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 " p6wer
of Satan."''

The Book of Job stands, in any case, alone
(whether we refer it to an early or a later peiiod)
on the basis of " natural religion," apart from the

Henffstenberg, and others, in I^ev. xvi. 8, as a reference to
the Spirit of Kvil. .Such a reference would not only stand
alone, but would be entirely inconsistent with tlie whole
tenor of tlie Mosaic lovclation. See Da v or Atonement.

SATAN

gi'adual and orderly evolutions of fhe Mosaic reve-
lation. Jn it, for the first time, we find a distinct
mention of " Sat;ui," " the adversary " of Job.
liut it is important to remark the emphatic stress
laid on his subordinate position, on the absence of
all but delegated power, of all teiror, and all
grandeur in his character. He comes among the
" sons of God" to present himself before the Lord ;
his malice and envy are peimitted to have scope,
in accusation or in action, only for God's own pur-
])Oses; and it is especially remarliable that no power
of spiritual infiueuce, but only a power over out-
ward circumstances, is attributeil to him. All this
is widely dilTerent 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 Orniuzd with Ahriman, the co-
ordinate Spirit of Evil. In the books written
after the Cajitivity 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
inferiorit)' are as strongly marked as ever. In
1 Chr. xxi. 1, where the name occure without the
article (" an adversaiy," not " the adveisary "),
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 Loid " against Israel. In Zech. iii. 1, 2,
" Satan" is o di/TiSi/coy (as in 1 Pet. v. 8), the
accuser of .Joshua before the throne of God, re-
buked and put to silence by Him (comp, Ps. cix. 6j.
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 degi'ee, 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 witchcrafl
(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 Oid and
New Test, the Jewish mind had pondered on the
scanty revelations already given of evil spiritual
influence. r>ut the Apocryphal Books (as, for ex-
ample, Tobit and Judith), while dwelling on
"demons" {^aip.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 VVisd. 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 example in Ex. .ixxii. 19, in

SATAN

1 145

connexion with the worship of the golden calf
(comp. the tradition as to the body of Moses, Dent.
.\xxiv. 5, (5 ; Jude 9, Michael). But, while a
mass of fable and superstition grew up on fhe
general subject of evil spiritual influence, still the
existence and nature ot Satan remained in tlie baik-
ground, felt, but not understood.

The N. T. first brings it plainly forwai d. 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 toleiated
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 ('icrr-qKev)
not in the truth. . . . When he speaketh a lie, he
speiiketh 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 trailition, 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"
iSaifiSvia) 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 aichangel, one of the " princes " of
heaven. We cannot, of course, conceive that any-
thing essentially and originally evil was cre;ited by
God. We find by experience, that the will of a free
and rational cieature can, by His permission, oppose
His will ; that the veiy conception of freedom
implies capacity of temptation : and that every
sin, unless arrested by God's fresh gift of grace,
strengtliens 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 liad 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 wo need to
know. The passage on which all the fabric of tra-
dition and poetry has been raised is Kev. 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
" ciist 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 oiiginal
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

1146

SATAN

cast them into hell, delivered fliem to chains of
darkness ((TeipaTs ^6<pov Taprapwaas TrapeSaiKiv),
resented unto judgment," with the parallel passage
in Jude 6, '• Angels, who kept not their first estate
(tjji' eauTcSr apxv"), but left their own habita-
tion, he hath reserved iu everlasting chains under
darkness unto the judgment of the Great Day."
Here again the passage is mysterious ;"= but it seems
hardly possible to consider Satan as one of these ;
for they are in chains and guarded (reTrjpTjfiivovs)
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, wc have still to con-
sider the declaration of our Lord in Luke x. 18,
" I beheld {iOeiopovv) Satan, as lightning, fall
from heaven." This may refer to the fact of liis
original fall (although the use of the imperfect
tense, and the force of the context, rather refer it
figui'atively 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 alieady
quoted (John vtii. 44), in which our Lord declares
of him, that "he was a murderer from the be-
ginning," that "he stands not (eVrrj/ce) in the
truth, because thei'e is no truth in him," " that he
is a liar and the father of it." But here it seems
likely the words an apxv^ 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 ecTr/zce (wrongly ren-
dered " abode " in A. V.), and the rest of the verse,
I'efei- to pi-esent 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 jiride he fall
into the condemnation" [KpifJ-a) " of the devil." It
is concluded from this, that pride was the cause of
the devil's condemnation. The infeience 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 camiot be
regarded as a matter of certain Revelation.

But, while these pomts 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
raoial attributes of God, Love, Truth, and Purity
or Holiness; combined with that spirit, which is the
natural temper of a finite and dependent cieature,
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 consfcuit mention of the " un-
clean " spirits, of which he is the chief, we find im-
purity ; fiom 1 Tim. iii. 6, and the narrative of the
Temptation, we trace the spirit of pride. These
are especially the " sins of the devil ;" in them wo
trace the essence of moral evil, and the features of
the reprobate mind. Add to this a spirit of rert-
less activity, a power of craft, and an intense desire

SATAN

to spread coiTuption, and with it eternal death, and
we have the portraiture of the Spirit of Evil as
Scripture has drawn it plainly before our eyes.

(C.) His Power axd 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 of
a powerful and evil nature on those, in whom lurks
the geiTQ of the same evil, differing from the in-
fluence exei'cised by a wicked man, in degree rather
than in kind ; but it has the power of acting by
suggestion of thoughts, without the medium of
actions or words — a power which is only in very
slight degree 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 i-epresented as a ne-
gative influence, taking away the action of the
Word of God for good ; in that of the wheat and
the tares (JIatt. xiii. 39), as a jiositive 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 of
God ; for he declares to Agrippa that his mission
was " to turn men fiom darkness to light, and from
the power (i^ovaias) 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). 'i"he same truth is conveyed, though in a
bolder and moi-e startling form, in the Epistles to
the Churches of the Apocalypse, where the body of
the unbelieving Jews is called a " synagogue of
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 of
Christ. Another and even more i-emarkable 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 i Karapyeiu) " him, that hath the
power {rh Kpdros) of death, that is, the devil ;"
for death is evidently regarded as the " wages of
sin," and the power of death as inseparable from
the power of corruption. Nor is this truth only
expressed directly and foi-mally ; 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 obseiTed, 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 tem-
porary and limited, subordinated to the Divine
CDunsfl, and broken by the Incai-nate Son of Hod.
It is brought out visibly, in the fomr of posse.-sioM,
in the earthly hfe of our Lord, only in order that
it may give the opportunity of His triumph. As
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 Flood,
closely connected with that passage.

seems i

SATAN

shortly" (Rom. xvi. 20; comp. Gpn. iii. IT)).
Nor is this all, for the history of the Book of Job
shows plainly, what is elsewhere constantly implied,
that Satanic influence is permitteJ, 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 f.lam. iv. 7j. It is indeed a power, to
which "place" or opportunity "is given," only
by the consent of man's will f 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 bv every successive act
of sin riveted more closely upon the soul. It is a
power which cannot act directly and openlv, 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 ciireful
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 tlie 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 tall
we know no more than of his, for they cannot be
the same as the fallen and imprisoned angels of
2 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude 6 ; but one passage (Matt.
xii. 24-26) identifies them distinctly with the
Sai/jLuvia (A. V. "devils"^) who had power to
jwssess the souls of men. The Jews there speak
of a Beelzebub (BeeX^f^ovX), "a prince of the
demons," whom they identity with, or symbolise
by, the idol of Ekron, the " god of tiles " [see
Beelzebub], and by whose power they accuse our
Lord of casting out demons. His answer is, " How
can Satan aist 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 KaraSvvaarevoixevous
virh Tov AiaP6\ov, and by Luke x. 18, in which
the mastery over the demons is connected by our
Lord with tlie " fall of Satan from heaven," and
their power included by Him in the " power of the
enemy " [tov ix^P"" i comp. Matt. .\iii. :;9). For
their nature, see Demoxs. They are mostly spoken
of in Sciipture in reference to possession ; but in
Eph. vi. 12 they are described in various lights, as
"principalities" [ajixai), "powers" (i^ovcriai),
" rulei's of the darkness of this world," and
" spiritual powers of vyickedness in heavenly places"

SATAN

1147

^ It is unfortunate that the A. V. should use the word
"devil," not only for its proper equivalent 5ia/3oAos, but
also for Sat/u.oi'toi'.

« The word Kocr/xo5, properly referring to the system of
the universe, and so used in John i. 10, is generally applied
in Scripture to human society as alienated from CJod, with

(or " things") (ri irvevfiaTiKh tijs Trofijplas Iv
Tols iirovpaviots) ; and in all as " wrestling "
against the soul of man. The same reference is
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 allied the
devil and Satan," against " Michael and his angels,"
and as cast out of heaven with theii' 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 eompai-ison with his. That
there is against us a jiower of spiritual wickedness
is a truth which we need to know, and a mysteiy
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 " (o &.pxo>v TOV K6fffiov tovtov) in John xii.
31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, and even the "god of this
world" (6 6el)9 tov alu>i/os tovtov) in 2 Cor. iv.
4 ; the two expressions being united in the words
Tovi Koa/xoKpaTopas tov aKSTOvs tov aloovos
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
teinptation would have been unreal, had he spoken
altogether falsely. It implies another kind of in-
direct influence exercised through earthly instru-
ments. There ai'e some indications in Scripture of
the exercise of this power through inanimate in-
struments, of an influence over the powei-s 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 in Ex. xii. 23 ; 2
Sam. xxiv. 16; 2 K. xix. 35; Acts xii. 23) ; and,
in our ignorance of tlie method of connexion of the
second causes of natui-e with the Supreme Will of
God, we cannot even say whether it has in it any
antecedent impi'obability ; but it is little dwelt
upon in Scripture, iu comparison with the other
exercise of this power through the hands of wicked
njen, who become " children of the devil," 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 " woi-ks 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 tliis indirect action of Satan manifested in those
who deliberately mislead 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 disceined by an
examination of the title, by which he is designated
in Sci'ipture. He is called emphatically 6 StdfioKos,
'• 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) ; axuiv refers to its transitory
character, and is evidently used above to qualify the
startling application of the word fleds, a " god of an age "
being of course no true God at all. It is used with icocrfios
in Kph. ii. 2.

1148

SATAN

tween othei-s, and "set them at vaiiance" (see,
e.g.. Plat. Sipnp. p. 222 c : Sia^dWeiv ifie Ka\
'AydOwva) ; but common usage adds to this general
sense the special idea of "setting at variance bij
slander." In the N. T. the word Sia;8oAoi is
used three times as an epithet (1 Tim. iii. 11 ;
2 Tim. iii. 3 ; Tit. ii. 3) ; and in each case with
something 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." Tliese words
contain the germ of the false notions, which keep
men from God, or reduce their sendee 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
human 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 folsehood
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" (avriSiKosj
of man in 1 Pet. v. 8, and represented in that cha-
racter in Zech. iii. 1, 2 ; and more plainly still de-
signated in Key. 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 actious of man, will rise up against us at
the judgment, to claim the soul as their own, and
fix 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 stedtkst faith.

But these points, imiiortant 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— Temjitjition and Pus-
session.

' See the connexion between faith and love by which
it is made perfect {iv^pyovij-ivrj) in Gal. v. b, and Ivctwocn

SATAN

The subject of temptation is illustrated, not only
by abstract statements, but also by the record
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 "
(TreipufffiSs), 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
(5wdfj.ei), must be brought out to exist in actual
efficiency (^ivepyeicf) by free exercise.' His appe-
tites and passions tend to their objects, simply and
unreservedly, without lespect to the rightuess 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 spiiit 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 onlv gain 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 teutability 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 straggle (sometimes
an " agony") in reliance on its strength.

It is exercised both negatively and positively.
Its negative exercise is referred to in the parable 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 evil in the in-
dividual heart or the world generally ; and it is to
be noticed, that the consideration of the true nature
of the tares (fifawo) 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 possil)le,
even against a sinless nature. We see this in the

faith and the works by which it is perfected (Tt\etoi)Tai)
in Jam. ii. 22.

SATAN

Temptation of our I.oiii. The temptations pre-
sented to Ilim appeal, first to the natural dcsiie
and need of food, next to the desire of power, to
be used for good, which is inheient 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 presumptubus or by unholy
means ; the answer to them ( given by the Lord as
tlie 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 lefusing to con-
template the issues of action, which belong to Him
alone. Such faith is a renunciation of all self-
conridence, 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 " tor the future (John
viii. o4 ; ii'oni. vi. 16); it therefore creates in the
spirit of man a positive tendency to evil, which
svmpathizes 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 boin 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 i/ovs) into captivity fRom, \'ii. 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 {aSSKifnos) mind, which delights in evil
for its own sake (Kom. i. 28, 32) and makes men
emphatically " 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
defegated power of Satan over outward cu'cum-
stances. To this latter power is to be traced
(as has been said) the trial ot Job by temporal loss
and bodily suflfering (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
nu-utioned, Luke xxii. 5; John .xxiii. 27 (Judas);
Luke xxii. 31 (Pclerj ; Acts v. 3 (Amuiias and

SATYRS

1149

Sapphim) ; 1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; 1 Thcss.
iii. 5.) The subject itself is the most startling form
of the mystery of evil ; it is one, on which, fiom
our ignorance of the connexion of the Fir.-t Cause
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 sufhcient here to remark, that although widely
ditfeient in form, yet it is of the same intrinsic cha-
i-acter 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 efl'ects
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.]

SATHEABU'ZANES {^adpafiovCdvns : Sa-
trahuzanes). Shetharboznai (1 Esd. vi. 3, 7,
27 ; comp. Ezr. v. 3, 6, vi. 6, 13).

SATYES (On^yb', sehim : ^aiix6vLa : 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
Setritn, 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, had
become acquainted with a form of goat-worship
from the Egvptians fsee Bochiu-t, Hieroz. iii. 82.5 ;
Jablonski Pant. Aei/i/pt. i. 273, et sqq.). The
opinion held by Michaelis {Supp. p. 2342) and
Lichtenstoiji {Commentat. de Simiarum, &c., §4,

1150

SAUL

p. hO, sqq.), that the Seirlin probably denote sorne
species of ape, lias been satictioned by Hamilton
Smith in Kitto's Cijc. 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 Arabicus as being the probable
satyr of Babylon. That some species of Cijno-
cephalus (dog-faced baboon) was an 'animal that
entered into the theology of the ancient Egyptians,
is evident from the monuments and from what
HorapoUo (i. 14-16) has told us. The other ex-
))lanation, however, has the sanction of Gesenius,
Bochart, lioseiimiiller, Parkhurst, Maurer, Fiirst,
and others. As to the "dancing" satyrs, comp.
Virg. Ed. V. 73,

"Saltantes satyros imitabitur Alphesiboeus."

[W. H.]

SAUL (^•IXK', i. e. Shaul : :S.ao{i\ ; Joseph.
"SiaovXos : Saiil), moi'e accurately SiiAUL, in which
form it is given on several occasions in the Autho-
rized Version. The name of various persons in the
Sacred History.

1. Saul of Rehoboth 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
Shaui.. [G.]

SAUL

2. The first king of Israel. The name 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) mentions a Saul, father
of one Simon wh6 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) ^6-iel = Je-hiel.
(6) Malchi-ahun = Je-shua. (c) Esh-6a«/= Ish-
bosheth. (d) Mephi- (or Meri-) baal = Mephi-
boshcth. 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 woidd
agree.

Bechorath.
I
Zeior. (LXX. Jaord.)
I
Able!, or .Tpliirl = Maacfmh.
(lS:im. ix. 1.) I (IChr. ix.)
(I Clir. viii. 33.)

Bajil. Ner.

(1 Chr. ix. 26.)
I

Zecliarinh.
(ZaclitT,
1 Chr. viii.)

Mikioth.
(1 Chr. ix. 3?.)

Shimefih.

Ahinoam = SAUL = Rizpab.
(I Chr. ix. 3».)

Jonathan. Ishui. Malchi-ehua. Abinadab. Esli-baal, Mcrab. David = Michal =» Phalticl. Arraont, Mephibosheth.

(1 Sam. Joshu

Merib-Wil. xiv. 49.)
Mephibosheth (I Chr. ix. 34).

Micah.

CJ(lS../7!i.
«, 1.)

ritbon.

Aliaz.
Jchohdali (.laiali, 1 Chi

Zimri.
Moza.

fiinea.

Rcphar (Kcphaiah, 1 tin

Eleasnh.

I ^_^

Azrikam. Uocheru. Ishmncl. Sheariah.

Ula

150 descendants.

~~\ 1

Jeliush. Eliphclct.

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 adopt the more elaborate pedigreo
in the Chronicles, we must suppo.so cither that a
link has been dropped between Abiel and K'ish, ia
1 Sam. ix. 1, or that the elder Kish, tlie son of
Abiel (1 Chr. ix. 36), h;is been confounded with

the younger Kish, the son of Ner (1 Chr. ix. :'.!)).
The pedigree in 1 Chr. viii. is not i'ree 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 Kish.

His character is in part illustrated by the fierce,
wayward, fitful nature of the tribe [BliN.TAMlN],
nu(i ill part accounted for by the struggle between
the old and new systems iu which In; found him-

SAUL

self involved. To this we must add a taint of
niiulness, which broke out in violent frenzy at
times, leaving him with long lucid intervals. His
all'eotions 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,
like the Homeric heroes, of gigantic stature, taller
bv 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 e.xtei'nal quali-
ties which led to the epithet which is frequently
attached to his name, " chosen " — ' ' whom the Lord
did choose " — " See ye (e. 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 warrant for saying that it was Gibeah,''
though, from its subsequent connexion with him, it
is called often "Gibeah of Saul " [Gibeah]. 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,
tln-ough Ephraim and Benjamin [Shalisha ; Sha-
LIM ; Zuph], they arrived at the foot of a hill sur-
rouniled by a town, when Saul proposed to return
home, but was deterred by the advice of the servant,
who suggested that beibre doing so they sliould
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
were 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 saci'ed eminence, where a sacri-
lieiaj 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 (rh KOL-raXvixa, LXX., ix. 27) found thirty
or (LXX., and Joseph. Ant. vi. 4, §1) seventy guests
assembled, amongst whom they took the chief place.
In antici]_)ation of some distinguished stranger,
Samuel had bade the cook reserve a boiled shoulder.

SAUL

1151

a 2 Sam. i. 19, the word translated "beauty," but the
same term (''^V) ^ ^ Sam. ii. 18 and elsewhere is
translated " roe." The LXX. have confounded it with a
very similar word, and render it STYJAdicroi', "set up a
pillar."

b WhenAbiel, or Jehiel(l Chr. viii.29, ix. 35), is called
the fatlier of "Gibeon," it probably means founder of
Gibeah.

c The word is IJ^J, " servant," not 131?, "slave."

<< At Zclzah, or (LXX.) " leaping for joy."

' Mistranslated in A. V. " plain."

' In X. 5, tribeatk ha-Ehhivi; in x. 10, hag-r/ibeahon\y.

from which Saul, as the chief guest, was bidden to
tear 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 Kachol's
sepulchre he met two men,'' who announced to him
the recovery of the asses — his lower cares were to
cease. At the oak* of Tabor [Plain; Taboi:,
Plain of] he met three men carrying gifts of kids
and bread, and a skin of wine, as an oflering to
Bethel. Two 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.*''
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 thecircleof 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 ^ of the people,
of whom he was now to be the especial head. The
munnurs of the worthless part of the community
who refused to salute him with the accustomed
presents were soon dispelled ' 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 airival of a
great calamity. It was the tidings of the threat
issued by Nahash king of Ammon against Jabe.sh
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. (AjU. vi. 4, 52) gives the name Gabatha-, by which
he elsewhere designates Gibeah, Saul's city.

e See for this Ewald (iii. 23-30).

** T'Tin. " tbe strength," the host, x. 26 ; comp. 2 Sam.
xxiv. 2. The word " band " is usually employed in the
A. V. for H-n^, a very different term, with a strict
meaning of its own. QTrooi".]

i The words which close 1 Sam. x. 27 are in Uie
Hebrew text "he was as though he were deaf;" in
Joseph. Ant. vi. 5, $1, and the LXX. (followed by Ewald),
• and it came to pass after a month that."

1152

SAUL

tiring nature which we have observed, vaiiislied
never to return. He liad recourse to the expedient
of the earher days, and summoned the people by
the boues of two of the oxen from the herd which
he was driving-: three (or six, LXX.) hundred thou-
sand followed frona Israel, and (perhaps not in due
proportion) thirty (or seventy, LXX.) thousand
from Judah: and Jabesh was rescued. The eti'ect
was instantaneous on the people — the punishment
of the mui-murere was demanded — but refused by
Saul, and the monarchy was inaucjurated anew at
Gilgal (xi. 1-15). It should be> however, observed
that, according to 1 Sam. xii. 12, the affair of
Nahash preceded and occ<isioned 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 continej to this circle of territoiy or
associations.

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.'' In the
2nd year' of his reign, he began to organise an
attempt to shake oft' 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, xfii. 3). An aniiy of
3000 was formed, which he soon afterwards gathered
together round him ; and Jonathan, apparently with
his sanction, rose against the officer '" and slew him
(xiii. 2-1). This roused the whole force of the
Philistine nation against him. The spirit of Israel
was completely broken. Jlany concetded 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 exei'cise 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 aixived, 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
drove the PhiHstines 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 fiom 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.

k Also 2 Sam.x. 15, LXX., for "Lord."

' The expression, xiii. 1, "Saul was one year old" (tlie
son of a year), in his reigning, may be eitlier, (1) lie
reigned one year; or (2), the word 30 may have dropped
out thence to xiii. 5, and it may have been " he was 31
when he began to reign."

■» The word may be rendered either "garrison" or
" (ifiicer ;" its meaning is uncerlain.

"■ The command of Samuel (x. '6) Lad apparently a

SAUL

1 Chr. xii. 29). Of this Abner became captu'n
(1 Sam. xiv. 50). A body guard was also formed of
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 com-t, and sate with Jonathan
at the king's table (1 Sam.xx. 25). Another officer
is incidentally mentioned — the keeper of the roj-al
mules — the comes stahtili, the "constable" of
the king — such as appears 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.) SjTian, of the name of Doeg
(1 Sam. xxi. 7, xxii. 9). According to Jewish
tradition (Jer. Qu. Heh. 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), ajid
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. [Arjis.] This never left liim —
in repose (1 Sam. xviii. 10, xix. 9 ) ; at his meals
(.\x. 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 on
such occasions specially known as biing^ing back
from the enemy scarlet robes, and golden orna-
ments for their apparel (2 Sam. i. 24).

The wai'like 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 1, 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 spai'ed the king for any other
reason than that for which he retained the spoil —
namelv, 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 for
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,"

perpetual obligation (xiii. 13). It had been given two
years before, and in the interval they had both been at
Gilgal (xi. 15). X.I5.— 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 (/Wd. vl. 6, {«).

p Jos. {Ant. vl. 10, Jl) makes the women sing the
praises of Saul, the maidens, of David.

SAUL

2 Sam. xviii. 18), which in tlie Jewish traditions
(Jerome, Qu. Ifcb. ad loc.) was a triumphal arch
of olives, myrtles, and palms. And in allusion to
his crowning triumph, Samuel ajiplies to God the
phrase, " The Victory ( ^'ulg. triumphator) of Israel
will neither lie nor repent" (xv. 29; and comp.
1 C'hr. x.xix. 11). This second act of disobedience
called down the second curse, and the fust 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.
v\. 7, §.5), and by the long mourning of Samuel
for the separation — " Samuel mouraed 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" fmuch 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 gi-oundlessly supposed to be Dokg. Jerome,
Qu. Heh. ad loc). From this time forward their
lives are blended together. [David.] In Saul's
better moments he never lost the strong aiiection
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. . . .
Return, 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 Puamah (xix. 24).
But his acts of fierce, wild zeal increased. The
massacre of the priests, with all their families i '
(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.
o, 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
anny, clinging as usual to the heights which were
their safety. It ^as 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.

SAUL

1153

She was a woman living at Endor, on the other
side of Little Hermon ; she is called a woman of
"Ob," i. e. of the skin or bladder, and tliis the
LXX. has rendeied by iyya(TTpifj.vdos or ventiilo-
quist, and the Vulgate by Pythoness. Accoi'dinc
to the Hebrew tiadition mentioned by Jerome,
she was the mother of Abner, and hence her
escape from the general massacre of the necio-
mancers (See Leo Allatius De Enfjastrimtit/io,
ca[). ti in Critici Sacri ii.). Volumes liave been
written on the question, whether in the scene
that follows we are to understand an imposture
or a leal apparition of Samuel. Eustathius and
most of the Fathers take the former view (repre-
senting it, however, as a figment of the Devil) ;
Oiigen, the latter view. Augustine wavers. (See
Leo'^AHatius, id supra, p. 1062-1114). The LXX.
of 1 Sam. xxvii. 7 (by the above translation)
and the A. V. (by its omission of " himself" in
xxviii. 14, and insertion of" when" in xxviii. 12)
lean to the foimer. Josephus (who pronounces a
glowing eulogy on the woman, Ant.vi. 14, §2, 3),
and the LXX. of 1 C'hr. x. 13, to the latter. At
this distance of time it is impossible to determine
tlie relative amount of fi-aud or of reality, though
the obvious meaning of the narrative itself tends
to the hypothesis of some kind of apparition. She
recognises the disguised king first by the appear-
ance of Samuel, seemingly from his threatening
aspect or tone as towards his enemy." Saul appa-
rently saw nothing, but listened to her description
of a god-like figure of an aged man, wrapped round
with the royal or sacred robe,'

On hearing the denunciation, which the apparition
conveyed, Saul fell the whole length of his gigantic
stature (see xxviii. 2o, margin) on the ground, and
remained motionless till the woman and his servants
forced him to eat.

The next day the battle came on, and according
to Josephus (Ant. vi. 14, §7), perhaps according to
the spirit of the sacred narrative, his courage and
self-devotion returned. The Israelites were driven
up the side of Gilboa. The three sons of Saul
were slain (1 Sam. xx.xi. 2). Saul himself with
his armour-bearer was pursued by the archers and
the charioteers of the enemy (1 Sam. xxxi. 3 ;
2 Sam. i. f>). He was wounded in the stomach
(LXX., 1 Sam. xxxi. 3). His shield was cast
away (2 Sam. i. 21). According to one account,
he fell upon his own sword (1 Sam. xxxi. 4).
According to another account (which may be
reconciled with the former by supposing that it
describes a later incident), an Amalekite" came up at
the moment of his death-wound (whether from
himself or the enemy), and Ibund him " fallen,"
but leaning on his spear (2 Sam. i. 6, 10). The
dizziness of death was gathered over him (LXX.,
2 Sam. i. 9), but he was still alive; and he was,
at his own request, put out of his pain by the
Amalekite, who took off his royal diadem and brace-
let, and tarried the news to David (2 Sam. i. 7-10).
Not till then, according to Josephus (Ant. vi. 14,
§7), did the faithful armour-bearer fall on his sword
and die with him (1 Sam. xxxi. 5). The body on
being found by the Philistines was stripped, and
decapitated. The armour was sent into the Philis-

1 This is placed by Josephus as the climax of his guilt,
brought on by the intoxication of power (Ant. vi. 12, ^7).

' His companions were Abner and Amasa (Seder
Olam. Meyer, 492).

* When we last heard of Samuel he was mouming.for, ' ad loc), he was the son of Doeg.

VOL. II.

not hating, Saul. Had the massacre of the priests and
the persecution of David (xix. 18) alienated him.'
' UpaTLKrjv &iw\oiSa (Jos. Ant. vi. 14. }2).
According to the Jewish tradition (Jerome, Qu. Htb.

4 E

1154

SAVARAN

tine cities, as if in retribution for the spoliation of
Goliath, and finally deposited in the temple of
Astarte, apparently in the neighbouring Canaan-
itish city of Bethshan ; and over the walls of the
same city was hung the naked headless corpse,
with those of his three sons (ver. 9, 10). The
head was deposited (probably at Ashdod) in the
temple of Dagon (1 Chr. x. 10). ■ The corpse was
removed from Bethshan by the gratitude of the
inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead, who came over the
Jordan by night, carried oft' the bodies, burnt them,
and buried them under the tamarisk at Jabesh
(1 Sam. xx.\i. 13). Thence, after the lapse of
several years, his ashes and those of Jonathan were
removed by David to their ancestral sepulchre at
Zelah in Benjamin (2 Sam. xxi. 14). [Mephi-
BOSHETH, p. 3'25a.] [A. P. S.]

3. The Jewish name of St. Paul. This was
the most distinguished name in the genealogies of
the tribe of Benjamin, to which the Apostle felt
some pride in belonging (Rom. xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 5).
He himself leads us to associate his name with that
of the Jewish king, by the marked way in which
he mentions Saul in his address at the Pisidian
Antioch : " God gave unto them Saul the son of
Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin " (Acts xiii.
21). These indications are in harmony with tlie
intensely Jewish spirit of which the life of the
Apostle exhibits so many signs. [Paul.] The
early ecclesiastical writers did not fail to notice the
prominence thus given by St. Paul to his tribe.
Tertullian {adv. Marc. v. 1) applies to him the
dying words of Jacob on Benjamin. And Jerome,
in his Epitaphium Paulae (§8), alluding to the
preservation of the six hundred men of Benjamin
after the aftair of Gibeah (Judg. xx. 49), speaks
of them as " trecentos (sic) viros propter Apostolum
reservatos." Compare the article on Benjamin
[vol. i. 190 6].

Nothing certain is known about the change of
the Apostle's name from Saul to Paul (Acts xiii. 9),
to which reference has been already made. [Padl,
p. 736 6.] Two chief conjectures* prevail concern-
ing the change. (1.) That of Jerome and Augustine,
that the name was derived from Sergius Paulus,
the first of his Gentile converts. (2.) That which
appears due to Lightfoot, that Paulus was the
Apostle's Roman name as a citizen of Tarsus, na-
turally adopted into common use by his biographer
when his labours among the heathen commenced.
The former of these is adopted by Olshausen and
Meyer. It is also the view of Ewald (Gesch. vi. 4] 9,
20), who seems to consider it self-evident, and looks
on the absence of any explanation of the change as
a proof that it was so understood by all the readers
of the Acts. However this may be, after Saul has
taken his place definitively as the Apostle to the
Gentile world, his Jewish name is entirely dropped.
Two divisions of his life are well marked by the
use of the two names. [J. LI. D.]

SAV'ARAN {6 'S.avapdy : filius Saura, Ava-
riim?), an erroneous form of the title Avwan,
borne by Eleazar the son of Mattathias, which is
found in the common texts in 1 Mace. vi. 43,
[Eleazer 8, vol. i. p. 518.] [B. F. W.] '

SAVI'AS (om. in Vat.; Alex. :$aov1:a: om. in
Vulg.). Uzzi the ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 2 •
comp. Ezr. vii. 4).

« There are many other theories, one of which may be
mentioiied ; that of Nicephoni? (Hist. Ecd. ii. 37), who
treats Paulus as a contraction of Pusillus, and supposes it

SAVIOUR

SAVIOUR. The following article, together with
the one on the SON OF God, forms the coinplement
to the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. [See vol. i.
p. 1039.] An explanation is first given of the ■
word " Saviour," and then of His work of salvation,
as unfolded and taught in the New Testament. [See
also Messiah.]

I. The Word Saviour. — The term " Saviour,"
as applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, represents the
Greek soter {acariip), which in turn represents
certain derivati\'es from the Hebrevy root ynslia
(ytJ'''), particularly the participle of the Hiphil
form mosMa (I)''tJ'1D), which is usually rendered
"Saviour" in the A.V. {e.g. Is. xlvi. 15, xlix.
26). In considering the true import of "Saviour,"
it is essential for us to examine the original terms
answering to it, including in our view the use
of soter in the LXX., whence it was more immedi-
ately derived by the writers of the New Testament,
and further noticing the cognate terms " to save"
and " salvation," which express respectively the
action and the results of the Saviour's office. 1. The
first point to be observed is that the term soter is
of more frequent occurrence in the LXX. than the
term "Saviour" in the A. V. of the Old Testa-
ment. It represents not only the word moshia
above-mentioned, but also very frequently the
nouns yesh'a (VK''') and yeshuah {7\V^'^\)i which,
though properly expressive of the abstract notion
" salvation," are yet sometimes used in a concrete
sense for " Saviour." We may cite as an example
Is. Ixii. 1 1, " Behold, thy salvation cometh, his
reward is with him," where evidently " salvation"
= Saviour. So again in passages wheie these
terms are connected immediately with the person
of the Godhead, as in Ps. Ixviii. 20, " the God our
Saviour" (A.V. "God of our salvation "). Not
only in such cases as these, but in many others
where the sense does not require it, the LXX. has
soter where the A. V. has " salvation ;" and thus
the word " Saviour" was more familiar to the ear
of the reader of the Old Testament in our Lord's
age than it is to us. 2. The same observation holds
good with regard to the verb crdCetv, and the sub-
stantive acoTTjpla, as used in the LXX. An ex-
amination of the passages in which they occur
shows that they stand as equivalents for words
conveying the notions of well-being, succour, peace,
and the like. We have further to notice ffcoTrjpia
in the sense of recovery of the bodily health (2 Mace,
iii. 32), together with the etymological connexion
supposed to exist between the terms auTrjp and
crciixa, to which St. Paul evidently alludes in Eph.
V. 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21. 3. If we turn to the
Hebrew terms, we cannot fail to be struck with
their comprehensiveness. Ou» verb " to save "
implies, in its ordinary sense, the rescue of a person
from actual or impending danger. This is un-
doubtedly included .in the Hebrew root ydsh'a, and
may be said to be its ordinary sense, as testified by
the frequent accompaniment of the preposition min,
(]'D ; compare the trcoffei airS which the angel gives
in explanation of the name Jesus, Matt. i. 21).
But ydsh'a, beyond this, expresses assistance and
protection of every kind— assistance in aggressive
measures, protection against attack ; and, in a
secondary sense, the results of such assistance —

to have been a nickname given to the Apostle on account
of his 'insignificant stature !

SAVIOUR

victoi-y, safety, prosperity, .and happiness. We
may cite as an insti\nce of tlie agijresskc sense
Deut. XX. 4, " to fight for you against your enemies,
to save you;" of protection against attaclv Is. xxvi.
1, "salvation will God appoint for walls and bul-
warks;" of victortj 2 Sam. viii. G, "The Lord
preserved David," i. e. gave him victory ; of pros-
pcritti and /lappitiess. Is. Ix. 18, "Thou shalt call
thy walls Salvation ;" Is. Ixi. 10, " lie hath clothed
me with the garments of salvation." No better
instx^nce of this last sense can be adduced tlian the
exclamation " Hosanna," meaning, " Save, I beseech
thee," which was uttered as a prayer for God's
blessing on any joyous occasion (Ps. cxviii. 25),
as at our Lord's entry into Jerusalem, when the
etvmological connexion of the tenns Hosanna and
•Tesus could not have been lost on the ear of the
Hebrew (Matt. xxi. 9, l.^i). It thus appears that
the Hebrew and Greek terms had their positive as
well as their negative side, in other words that they
expressed the presence of blessing as well as the
absence of danger, actual security as well as the re-
moval of insecurity." 4. The historical personages
to whom the terms are applied further illustrate
this view. The judges are styled " .saviours," as
having rescued their counti-y from a state of bondage
(.ludg. iii. 9, 15, A. V. "deliverer;" Neh. ix. 27);
a " saviour " was subsequently raised up in the
person of Jeroboam II. to deliver Israel from the
Syiians (2 K. xiii. 5); and in the s;mie sense Jo-
sephus styles the deliverance from Egypt a "salva-
tion" (Ant. iii. 1, §1). Joshua on the other hand
verified the promise contained in his name by his
conquests over the Canaanites : the Lord was his
helper in an aggressive sense. Similaily the office
of the "saviours" promised in Obad. 21 was to
execute vengeance on Edom. The names Isaiah,
Jeshua, Ishi, Hosea, ^Hoshea, and lastly, Jesus, are
all expressive of the genei-al idea oi' assistaiice from
the Lord. The Greek soter was in a similar manner
applied in the double sense of a deliverer from foreign
foes as in the case of Ptolemy Soter, and a general
protector, as in the numerous instances where it was
appended as the title of heathen deities. 5. There are
numerous indications in the 0. T. that the idea of a
spiritual salvation, to be etfected by God alone, was
by no means foreign to the mind of the pious He-
brew. In the Psalms there are numerous petitions
to God to save from the effects of sin (e. </. xxxix.
8, Ixxix. 9). Isaiah in particular appropriates the
term "saviour" to Jehovah (xliii. 11), and con-
nects it with the notions of justice and rigliteousness
(xlv. 21, Ix. 16, 17) : he adduces it as the special
manner in which Jehovah reveals Himself to man
(xlv. 15): he hints at the means to be adopted for
effecting salvation in passages where he connects the
term "saviour" with "redeemer" {goel), as in
xli. 14, xlix. 26, Ix. 16, and again with " ransom,"
as in xliii. 3. Similar notices are scattered over the
prophetical books {e. g. Zech. ix. 9 ; Hos. i. 7), and
though in many instances these notices admitted of
a reference to proximate events of a temporal nature,
they evident!}' looked to higher things, and thus fos-
tered in the mind of the Hebrew the idea of a
"Saviour" who should far surpass in his achieve-

SAVIOUll

115;

nients the "saviours" that liad as yet appeared.
The mere sound of the word would conjure nj)
before his imagination visions of deliverance, se-
curity, peace, and prosperity.

II. The Work of thk Saviour. — 1. The
three first Evangelists, as we know, agree in show-
ing that Jesus unfolded His message to the disciples
by degrees. He brought the miracles that were to
be the credentials of the Messiah ; He laid down the
great principles of the Gosjiel morality, luitil He
had established in the minds of the Twelve the con-
viction that He was the Christ of God. Then as
the clouds of doom grew darker, and the malice of
the Jews became more intense. He tumed a new
page in His teaching. Drawing fiom His disciples
the confession of their faith in Him as Christ, He
then passed abruptly, so to speak, to the truth that
remained to be learned in the last few months of
His ministry, that His work included suffering as
well as teaching (Matt. xvi. 20, 21). He was in-
stant in pressing this unpalatable doctrine home to
His disciples, from this time to the end. Four occa-
sions when He prophesied His bitter death are on
record, and they are probably only examples out o"f
many more (Matt. xvi. 21). We grant that in
none of these places does the word ' ' sacrifice" occur;
and that the mode of speaking is somewhat obscure,
as addressed to minds unprepared, even then, to
bear the full weight of a doctrine' so repugrfant to
their hopes. But that He must (Set) go and meet
death ; that the powers of sin and of this world ai'e
let loose against Him for a time, so that He shall
be betrayed to the Jews, rejected, delivered by them
to the Gentiles, and by them be mocked and scourged,
crucified, and slain ; and that all this shall be done
to achieve a foreseen work, and accomplish all things
written of Hmi by the prophets — these we do cer-
tainly find. They invest the death of Jesus with a
peculiar significance ; they set the mind inquiring
what the meaning can be of this hard necessity that
is laid on Him. For the answer we look to other
places ; but at least there is here no contradiction
to the doctrine of sacrifice, though the Lord does
not yet say, " I bear the wrath of God against your
sins in your stead ; I become a curse for you." Of
the two sides of this mysterious doctrine, — that
Jesus dies for us willingly, and that he dies to bear
a doom laid on Him as of necessity, because some
one must bear it, — it is the latter side that is made
prominent. In all the passages it pleases Jesus to
speak, not of His desire to die, but of the burden
laid on Him, and the power given to others against
Him.

2. Had the doctrin? been explained no further,
there would have been mu'.'h to wait for. But the
series of announcements in these passages leads tip
to one more definite and complete. It cannot be
denied that the words of the institution of the
Lord's Su])pel- speak most distinctly of a sacrifice.
" Drink ye all of this, for this is My blood of the
new coven.ant," or, to follow St. Luke, " the new
covenant in My blood." We are cairieil back by
these words to the first covenant, to the altiir with
twelve pillars, and the burnt-offerings and peace-
offerings of oxen, and the blood of tiie victims

a The Latin language possessed in the classical period
no ])roper equivalent for the Greek o-wTijp. This appears
fiom the introduction of the Greek word itself in a l^atin-
ized fonn, and from Cicero's remark (in Yen: Act. 2, ii.
63) that there was no one word wliich expressed the
notion qui salutem dcdit. Tacitus (.-Inn. xv. 71) uSes
conservator, and Pliny (xxii. 5) scrvator. The term gal-

vat.or appears appended as a title of Jupiter in an in-
scription of the age uf Trajan (Gruter, p. 19, No. 5). This
was adopted by Christian writers as the most adequate
equivalent for o-cox^p, though objections were evidently
raised against it (Augustin, 5erBi. 299, }6). Another
term, salutificatnr, was occasionally used by TertuUian
(nc Ilvsnir. cam. -17 ; J)e cam. Chr. 14).

4 E 2

1156

SAVIOUR

sprinkled on' the altar and on the people, and the
words of Moses as he sprinkled it : " Behold the
blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made
with you conceming all tlieso words" (Ex. xxiv. ).
No interpreter has ever failed to draw from these
passages the true meaning : " When My sacrifice is
accomplished, My blood shall be the sanction of the
new covenant." The word " sacrifice" is wanting;
but sacrifice and nothing else is described. And
the words are no mere figure used for illustration,
and laid aside when they have served that turn,
'• Do this in remembrance of Me." They are the
words in which the Church is to interpret the act
of Jesus to the end of time. They are reproduced
exactly by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 25). Then, as
now, Christians met together, and by a solemn act
declared that they counted the blood of Jesus as a
sacrifice wherein a new covenant was sealed ; and of
the blood of that sacrifice they partook by faith,
professing themselves thei'eb}'' willing to enter the
covenant and be sprinkled with the blood.

3. So far we have examined the three " synoptic"
Gospels. They follow a historical order. In the
early chapters of all three the doctrine of our Lord's
sacrifice is not found, because He will first answer
the question about Himself, " Who is this?" before
he shows them "What is His work?" But at
length the announcement is made, enforced, re-
peated ; until, when the feet of the betrayer are
ready for their wicked errand, a command is given
which secures that the death of Jesus shall be
described for ever as a sacrifice and nothing else,
sealing a new covenant, and carrying good to many.
Lest tiie doctrine of Atonement should seem to be
an afterthought, as indeed De Wette has tried to
I'epresent it, St. John preserves the conversation
with Nicodemus, which took place early in the mi-
nistry ; and there, under the figure of the brazen
serpent lifted up, the atoning virtue of the Lord's
death is fully set forth. " As Moses lilted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
Man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in Him
should not perish, but have eternal life " (John iii.
14, 15). As in this intercessory act, the image of
the deadly, hatefid, and accursed (Gen. iii. 14, 15)
reptile became by God's decree the means of health
to all who looked on it earnestly, so does Jesus in
the form of sinful man, of a deceiver of the people
(Matt, xxvii. 63), of Antichrist (Matt. xii. 24;
John xviii. 33), of one accursed (Gal. iii. 13), be-
come the means of our salvation ; so that whoever
fastens the earnest gaze of faith on him shall*not
perish, but have eternal life. There is even a sig-
nificance in the word "lilt?d up;" the Lord used
probably the word fjp"!, which in older Hebrew
meant to lift up in the widest sense, but began in
the Aramaic to have the restricted meaning of lift-
ing up for punishment.'' With Christ the lifting
up w;is a seeming disgrace, a true triumph and
elevation. But the context in which these verses
occur is as important as the verses themselves. Ni-
codemus comes as an inquirer; he is told that a man
must be horn again, and then he is directed to the
death of Jesus as the means of that regeneration.
The earnest gaze of the wounded .soul is to be the
condition of its cure ; and that gaze is .to be turned,
not to Jesus on the mountain, or in the Temple,

b So Tlioluck, and Knapp (Opuscula, p. 217). The trea-
tise of Knapp on llils discourse is valualjle throughout.

'• Some, omitting iji' eyw SoitToi, would read, " And my
liesh is the bread that I will give for the life of the world."

SAVIOCK

but on the Cross. This, then, is no passing allu-
sion, but it is the substance of the Christian teaching
addressed to an earnest seeker after truth.

Another passage claims a reverent attention —
" If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever,
and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I
will give for the life of the world " (John vi. 51).
He is the bread; and He will give the bre.ad.c If
His presence on earth wei-e the expected food, it
was given already ; but would He speak of " drink-
ing His blood" (ver. 53), which can only refer to
the dead ? It is on the Cross that He will aflbrd
this food to His disciples. W^e grant that this whole
passage has occasioned as much disputing among
Christian commentators as it did among the Jews
who heard it ; and for the same reason, — for the hard-
ness of the saying. But there stands the saying ;
and no candid person can refuse to see a reference
in it to the death of Him that speaks.

In that discourse, which has well been called the
Prayer of Consecration otfeied by our High Priest,
there is another passage which cannot be alleged as
evidence to one who thinks that any word applied
by Jesus to His disciples and Himself must bear in
both cases precisely the same .sense, but which is
really pertinent to this inquiry : — " Sanctify them
through Thy truth : Thy word is truth. As Thou
hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent
them into the world. And for their sakes I sanc-
tify Myself, that they also might be sanctified
through the truth" (John xvii. 17-19). The word
ayidC^tv, " sanctify," " consecrate," is used in the
Septuagint for the offering of sacrifice (Levit. ,\xii.
2), and for the dedication of a man to the Divine
service (Num. iii. 15). Here the present tense,
" I consecrate," used in a discourse in which our
Lord says He is " no more in the world," is con-
clusive against the interpretation " I dedicate My
life to thee;" for life is over. No self-dedication,
except that by deat